Carefree care fee planning?
Comments
-
A major part of the new proposals is that the value of the house will be taken into account when the cost of Home Care is worked out, not just Residential Care as at present.
A lot more people have some kind of Home Care compared to the number that go into Residential Care, which is typically required when home care isn't enough anymore.
Result - More people are likely to be affected, although as a proportion of those will not need residential care (pass away at home), and home care is cheaper expect the headlines* to be along the lines of:
"New scheme means pensioners get to leave more for their beneficiaries than under old scheme" as average per pensioner will be lower.
*I'm sure the DM / Sun / party political broadcast will come up with punchier headlines.0 -
Could encourage more people to consider Immediate Care Needs Annuities earlier rather than gamble on dying before the money runs out.
£100k seems a reasonably generous level IMO, compared with the approximately £23k it has been. As NotSkint says, why shouldn't people pay for their own care to the extent they can, rather than expecting it to be picked up by the general taxpayer.0 -
But the foot high headlines full of lies and drivel put out by the Mail and its friends are ok?, but I'm even less a fan of the BBC's corrupt politics.
BBC generally puts both sides of the argument. The printed media tend just to put one side aimed at whipping up their target audience.0 -
But the foot high headlines full of lies and drivel put out by the Mail and its friends are ok?
Depends on your perspective. If you are a Daily Express reader you probably think the Daily Mail is too bland and left wing
BC generally puts both sides of the argument. The printed media tend just to put one side aimed at whipping up their target audience.
I would agree with you with most of their content. Sometimes, the odd editorial can let them down though.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
If you need residential care and a spouse (or certain other people) live in the home, its value is ignored.
But not under the conservative proposals anymore.
Say a widow had been caring for her late husband for the best part of a decade with the assistance of carers but then for the last 3 years of his life he went into nursing care.
Under the current system, the value of the house would be ignored and after her husband's death she could then sell up and move to be closer to her grandchildren.
Under the new system the value of the house will count so that there is likely to be a £200k charge against the house presumably increasing by RPI every year. Though she won't be homeless, she probably won't be able to move and if she lives another 10 years, inflation will probably have whittled the 100k left in the estate to nothing.0 -
I'm assuming this will apply to anyone needing home/residential care, regardless of age.How's it going, AKA, Nutwatch? - 12 month spends to date = 2.31% of current retirement "pot" (as at end March 2024)0
-
Teaandscones wrote: »But not under the conservative proposals anymore.
Say a widow had been caring for her late husband for the best part of a decade with the assistance of carers but then for the last 3 years of his life he went into nursing care.
Under the current system, the value of the house would be ignored and after her husband's death she could then sell up and move to be closer to her grandchildren.
Under the new system the value of the house will count so that there is likely to be a £200k charge against the house presumably increasing by RPI every year. Though she won't be homeless, she probably won't be able to move and if she lives another 10 years, inflation will probably have whittled the 100k left in the estate to nothing.
Don't see anything wrong with that.0 -
So the option would be to sell up and move earlier, using some of the funds to subsidise the husbands care (still not the full cost, as he would presumably have full level attendance allowance) for the 3 years, maybe through an insurance policy. There is then no loan increasing by RPI and the whole remaining estate can be inherited, or used to fund her care later if needed.0
-
No it isn't, unless you could foresee the need for care at that time. The idea you're not allowed to spend your own money just because in the future you might need to pay care home fees or some other means tested benefit is ridiculous.And you can't gift it to someone else as that is deprivation of assets.
See http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/deprivation-of-assets-in-the-means-test-for-care-home-provision/Foreseeability
Annex E of the statutory guidance confirms it is unreasonable to decide you have disposed of an asset to reduce the level of care charges if, at the time the disposal took place, you were fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for care and support.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards