Looking to the Future!!

Oldernotwiser

hobbledehoy. wrote: »

And yes, what has been done by my father and what we are anticipating in doing is entirely legal and possible.

I would never dream of suggesting that what you are trying to do is illegal; I used the word "wrong", which is something quite different.

I hope that you never have to go into a publicly funded care home, you may find that decisions made now could come back to haunt you.

hobbledehoy.

zygurat789 wrote: »

Of course you are entitled to arrange your affairs as you wish, so long as it is legal and having due regard to the Ramsey principle.
You are entitled to whatever everyone else in your exact circumstances is entitled to but I would anticipate that this may well be less than you expect given that the benefits regime is supposed to be being tightened and net assets of £116,000.

Thank you for your comments. The Ramsay Principle would not apply as there are no artificial transactions involved.

The principle involved in my case was referred to the Inland Revenue Commissioners in 1936 viz:

"Every man is entitled if he can to arrange his affairs so that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwise would be. If he succeeds in ordering them as to achieve that result, then however unappreciative the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue or his fellow taxpayers may be of his ingenuity, he cannot be compelled to pay an increased tax."
Lord Tomlin in IRC v Duke of Westminster, 1936

That same principle now applies to all 'tax' gathering processes including payments for health care.

Yes at the moment there are net assets in my wife's name of £116,000 but none in mine (apart from the insurance policy).

My thoughts were to use the net sale proceeds of £100,000 or a sufficient sum as is necessary to purchase a bungalow, but using an equity release mortgage of 36%. That way, the rolling charge on the property will preclude SS from using the equity as available capital if either of us goes into care.

hobbledehoy.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I don't know if I understand or not, which is why I think you need proper advice. counsel and care may be a useful source.

Thank you for that link, I will speak with them next week.

hobbledehoy.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I would never dream of suggesting that what you are trying to do is illegal; I used the word "wrong", which is something quite different.

I hope that you never have to go into a publicly funded care home, you may find that decisions made now could come back to haunt you.

Thank you for clarifying your comment.

I do have experience of public funded care homes. To be honest, you do have a good choice of them. My mother in law, when she entered one, had every possible convenience and the staff were fantastic.
Prior to that she lived in public funded sheltered accomodation for a good number of years and loved it.

It is all about choices, whoever has to make the choice for the other has options. What we are doing is to protect those options.

Savvy_Sue

you might find that the options for public funded care homes are less good now than they were, and I don't see them improving any time soon.

mind you, my preference would be to have care in my own home. which is, I believe what many would prefer. and someone will give the statistical likelihood of NEEDING a care home: it's far lower then you might think, rather than the outcome for the majority of us.
:

Oldernotwiser

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

mind you, my preference would be to have care in my own home. which is, I believe what many would prefer. and someone will give the statistical likelihood of NEEDING a care home: it's far lower then you might think, rather than the outcome for the majority of us.
:

I believe that only about 5% of older people are in residential care.

I cannot see how anyone can think that they will have more choice if they have less money.

hobbledehoy.

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I believe that only about 5% of older people are in residential care.

I cannot see how anyone can think that they will have more choice if they have less money.

Hello,

I said options not choice although both are very similar.
With the capital hopefully protected, we would have the options of public funded care either at home or in a care home, or if that does not suit, privately funded care.

This choice is not there if you have the money available - you have to use it!

It's all a question if public funded care is satisfactory then we will use it. If as you say it could be diabolical, then we have the option to pay for it. Why pay for it if it can be provided for free!

scotsbob

hobbledehoy. wrote: »

Why pay for it if it can be provided for free!

It isn't free.

I and other tax payers are paying for it.

hobbledehoy.

scotsbob wrote: »

It isn't free.

I and other tax payers are paying for it.

I agree that taxpayers in the future will be funding it should it be necessary, but in the past whilst I was working and paying tax, I provided the finance for others to have public care facilities!

Savvy_Sue

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I believe that only about 5% of older people are in residential care.

that figure sounds about right.

hobbledehoy. wrote: »

With the capital hopefully protected, we would have the options of public funded care either at home or in a care home, or if that does not suit, privately funded care.

This choice is not there if you have the money available - you have to use it!

It's all a question if public funded care is satisfactory then we will use it. If as you say it could be diabolical, then we have the option to pay for it. Why pay for it if it can be provided for free!

I'd wonder though how easy this 'protection' will be to arrange, and whether any current 'loopholes' won't be closed in future.

actually, another option, about which I know only what I've read on MSE, would be purchase of a care needs annuity. I believe you pay a lump sum, which then pays out monthly, for life. and again, I believe that the earlier you buy, the better vfm you get.