Paying for Social Care

I don't understand why any child would feel they'd lost out if their parent(s) money was spent on the care they needed later in life.

I don't agree with syphoning of money and or assets during one's life time to ensure AC get an inheritance and then if care is needed, and there isn't enough money to pay for it, everyone else has to pay.

I agree Alegrias "inheritance is not a human right".

Casdon

I think many people with surplus money will just give the majority of it to their children earlier in their lives, won’t they? Provided you don’t die within 7 years of the gift it’s quite legal to do that, and it is one way of reducing your assets if you are determined to give money to your children. I can’t imagine a proposal to stop people gifting, or to claw it back from their children when they die as you suggest Doodledog would have any chance at all of being passed, the electorate wouldn’t stand for it.

This is correct. We already give our children much more generous gifts than we ever received as young adults. The gifts will undoubtedly become more generous as we get even older. It is our own taxed income to spend as we wish.

Here's a scenario....

You get to 75 and believe that you've worked hard all your life and you've saved tens of thousands of pounds, and you own a house. You'd really like to leave it all to your kids and so you think the best way to achieve that is to get the taxman to pay for your food, Community Charge, utilities, TV licence, household goods...

Any sensible person would tell you where to get off, buy your own stuff. Oh, unless you live in a Care Home of course, because then anything goes.

It just doesn't make sense.

Just checked on inheritance tax. Each parent can leave up to £500,000 to a child/children of their own. After that amount inheritance tax is 40%. You can leave up to £325,000 to anyone else. Again after that amount the tax is at 40%. The tax is quite high IMO. A poster has said parents who are wealthy will give it away to their children well before thy expect to die. I am sure most parents in this position will indeed do this.

I was thinking more in terms of parents helping their children with house purchase and that type of scenario Alegrias1, when the parents are in their fifties and sixties. Apparently one in five house purchases in 2019 were purchased in this way.

love0c

As on another post I asked 'who is the fool? The one who spends their money and then turns to the state to pay for their care or the one who saves towards it it? Clearly the one who saves towards it by your reasoning then.

So you are saying that if those who can't afford it are helped you would rather life had turned out badly for you too?

This is the "If I can't have everything you can have anything" you get from very small children as they gather everything in their arms and scream the place down.

Spending money rather depends on having any to spare.
Lots of people simply aren't in that position.

Casdon

I think many people with surplus money will just give the majority of it to their children earlier in their lives, won’t they? Provided you don’t die within 7 years of the gift it’s quite legal to do that, and it is one way of reducing your assets if you are determined to give money to your children. I can’t imagine a proposal to stop people gifting, or to claw it back from their children when they die as you suggest Doodledog would have any chance at all of being passed, the electorate wouldn’t stand for it.

So you think parents will give away everything and be left with no choices for themselves?

foxie48

Doodledog your assertion that people only work hard at school, work overtime and take stressful jobs etc so they can leave money to their children is IMHO complete rubbish. On that basis, single people and childless couples wouldn't bother either. I know lots of hard working ambitious childless people and I have no doubt they will end up paying for their care should they need it and they don't even have children they can turn to for help with even the most basic things like shopping!

It wasn't my assertion! It was something that growstuff mentioned earlier.

MissAdventure

Spending money rather depends on having any to spare.
Lots of people simply aren't in that position.

Of course there are. Sadly, we seem to have some spoilt kids in the population who would rather deprive themselves than help others.

There is thread on here from Santander, advising people how to go about helping their children, presumably without losing out themselves.

I think you will find that once it's given it's given.

I don’t know what others would do, but I would keep my house and if necessary it will pay for my care. I will certainly use my money, what I have, to treat my children and grandchildren. I already do this. We paid for weddings, IVF, and give/gave generous gifts. There are certainly people who are wealthy. We are not wealthy but we own our own home and have saved some money. I assume most of you will be doing the same as far as each of us is able.

No PippaZ I don’t. Many parents work for longer than they would otherwise do to help their children buy a house, and others downsize when their children leave home to free up capital. That doesn’t reduce most to penury, but it does reduce their assets.

varian

Life is a lottery Doodle

Some folk are born into wealth, some onto poverty. and some poor souls are born into a war zone.

Fairness of any sort is an illusion - but that does not mean that it is not something we should strive for and vote accordingly.

Yes, I know.

I realise that we are going round in circles, but to me, voting for the right of this who are neither rich nor poor to be able to work towards improving the chances of their children is an attempt at fairness. It's the only chance they have. As I keep saying, none of this really applies to the rich or the poor, and I see means testing as keeping people in their place - it is cruel and regressive.

To remove that right (to those unfortunate enough to need care) is going to drag the family down, not raise poor people up - it just seems vindictive to me, and unnecessary if instead of concentrating on ensuring that 'ordinary' people don't get a head start, we looked at ways of implementing a fairer tax system so that care is paid for upfront.

Pippa Sorry I do not understand your post. My husband and I have always worked hard and encouraged our children to do the same. If you want something then save for it, learn to pay your own way. regardless of how this or any government decided to proceed I will always keep this opinion. Personal pride. We should all be encouraged to think this way. If we did the country would be better off as a whole. A fair way has yet to be found. But it needs to be one that encourages people to save for retirement if they are able to do so, not discourage.

And if they're not able?

I think we all know parents generally help their children in any way they can. We really don't need to violin strings - it's something we all do however we can.

If after that they will have enough to chose their care that's great.

My previous post was in reply to Casdon Tue 14-Sep-21 18:54:32

PippaZ

love0c

As on another post I asked 'who is the fool? The one who spends their money and then turns to the state to pay for their care or the one who saves towards it it? Clearly the one who saves towards it by your reasoning then.

So you are saying that if those who can't afford it are helped you would rather life had turned out badly for you too?

This is the "If I can't have everything you can have anything" you get from very small children as they gather everything in their arms and scream the place down.

See, that's what I am hearing in the 'why should people leave money behind when not everyone can do that?' posts.

I wonder how many on here have received an inheritance? That would be interesting. For reference, neither myself nor my husband have ever received a penny in inheritance. I wonder how people’s views are formed by the receiving of or not receiving of an inheritance.

Miss Adventure That is the whole point. The government have yet to find a fair way for everyone. A previous poster has said 'fairness is an illusion, but we should still strive for it'. I agree.

I didnt.
When people talk of themselves and their husbands, my mum fell at that hurdle by being widowed young.
Lazy or feckless, she certainly wasn't.

The whole system is grossly unfair for several reasons:

It's a lottery - whether you'll need care, and for how long.

Only money and property are included as 'assets' for care.

Some people have no chance of ever saving for care needs.

The quality of care available varies widely.

Why not replace the system with an insurance-based health scheme, available to those who need it in later life?

I haven't inherited a penny either.

I try to take myself out of political hypothesising, as far as that is possible. Obviously we are shaped by experience though, so it's a good question.