Inhertitance - Care homes get it!!!

chris_m

grizzly1911 wrote: »

A misapprehension suggests your opinion is right and that of the OP is wrong.
The OP is entitle to their opinion.

Fair point - the OP is entitled to their opinion, even when it's wrong

grizzly1911

chris_m wrote: »

Fair point - the OP is entitled to their opinion, even when it's wrong

In you opinion:p:p

AdamS

As the OP, I dont have a steadfast opinion. A lot of comments have been food for thought.

jamesd

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So if he had given away wealth, some years before when in good health and subsequently needed care would that be OK?

Depends what definition of OK you're using. It's a succesfusl way to game the current system so it's OK if measured against that objective, provided the person doing it is willing to risk a failure of the recipients to pay it back if it's needed.

If you measure it against social values there's a tension between freedom to use money as desired and each person paying something for the benefits they receive, which is itself not necessarily an objective of a society like ours in which some costs are distributed over society as a whole for cases that happen to a fairly small portion of the population.

Personally I'd like to see this partly handled by access to pension pots at a higher rate than normal drawdown rates in cases where life expectancy has become markedly reduced. That would provide some incentive to use pension pots for it and would on average produce a higher pension income level, making the money do useful double service. This can only handle it partly because many would decline to build up such pots. Those who decline to do so may well end up having to face losing assets to pay instead.

grizzly1911

jamesd wrote: »

Depends what definition of OK you're using. It's a succesfusl way to game the current system so it's OK if measured against that objective, provided the person doing it is willing to risk a failure of the recipients to pay it back if it's needed.

If you measure it against social values there's a tension between freedom to use money as desired and each person paying something for the benefits they receive, which is itself not necessarily an objective of a society like ours in which some costs are distributed over society as a whole for cases that happen to a fairly small portion of the population.

Personally I'd like to see this partly handled by access to pension pots at a higher rate than normal drawdown rates in cases where life expectancy has become markedly reduced. That would provide some incentive to use pension pots for it and would on average produce a higher pension income level, making the money do useful double service. This can only handle it partly because many would decline to build up such pots. Those who decline to do so may well end up having to face losing assets to pay instead.

An answer worthy of a politician;) yes or no would have done.