'Pay When You Die' proposed for elderly needing care

Kennyboy66

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't think its a bad idea if families have longer to sell their homes if that's appropriate. What I don't get is the whole "we have to have an asset to pass on" thing. If my last parent falls ill at any time I could go live there and offer them care, I could pay to have a specialist carer to come into the home or they could sell their home to pay for care. Clearly sometimes the level of specialist care required rules out options 1 and 2, but often it isn't that black and white. All this does is offer a new option on the last point, which could be interesting as, AIUI, end of life care does not tend to cost the same as a house as people often don't live that long in nursing homes, even where care is expensive. I still appreciate though that the devil is in the detail on this.

I'd much rather have a house and be able to plan for such eventualities - whether or not it ends up being sold to pay for my care - than leave everything to chance, possibly ending my days in a grotty bedsit because that's then the accommodation that they give to the elderly, or worse still, they expect widowed people to share a house. Anything is possible going forward and I don't want to be a part of that lottery.

Nursing care is paid for - however the bar is set really high. Someone left bed ridden from a stroke, incontinent and having to be fed by a tube in their stomach (as an example) would not qualify. The would have residential care where you self fund if you have the assets.

The average amount of time in a residential care home is supposedly 4 years. Hence the insurance cost at point of need (there is really no other market at the moment) is about £100k (average residential fees England £28k per year).

MacMickster

Why stop at care costs?

Surely it would be an idea to treat all benefits as loans, and to recoup the amounts paid during their lifetime from the estate of a person when they pass away.

With average life expectancy now in the 80s, most "children" are now unlikely to receive their inheritance until they are in their late 50s or 60s, at which point they are likely to deposit it in the bank to pass on to their pensioner offspring down the line.

Personally, I would rather pay far more tax when I die, if it means that both I and my children pay far less whilst we are alive.

tom717

MacMickster wrote: »

Why stop at care costs?

Surely it would be an idea to treat all benefits as loans, and to recoup the amounts paid during their lifetime from the estate of a person when they pass away.

With average life expectancy now in the 80s, most "children" are now unlikely to receive their inheritance until they are in their late 50s or 60s, at which point they are likely to deposit it in the bank to pass on to their pensioner offspring down the line.

Personally, I would rather pay far more tax when I die, if it means that both I and my children pay far less whilst we are alive.

How would you stop people giving away their assets before they die if they want to?

MacMickster

tom717 wrote: »

How would you stop people giving away their assets before they die if they want to?

With similar rules to inheritance tax (but maybe extend the 7 year rule to 12 years and without any exempt amount).

chewmylegoff

On sky news it was reported this evening that 20,000 pensioners a year are forced to sell their homes to pay for care.

In other words ever year 0.1667% of pensioners are forced to sell their home to pay for care.

Talk about a non issue. Why is the govt wasting time on this?

Itismehonest

chewmylegoff wrote: »

On sky news it was reported this evening that 20,000 pensioners a year are forced to sell their homes to pay for care.

In other words ever year 0.1667% of pensioners are forced to sell their home to pay for care.

Talk about a non issue. Why is the govt wasting time on this?

At a guess because as more pensioners need care & there's less money in the pot the percentage will possibly go up significantly.

grizzly1911

MacMickster wrote: »

With similar rules to inheritance tax (but maybe extend the 7 year rule to 12 years and without any exempt amount).

Looks like the Camerons and Osbornes will need to get planning a bit sooner than their fathers.;)

Surprised more people don't anyway.

chewmylegoff

Itismehonest wrote: »

At a guess because as more pensioners need care & there's less money in the pot the percentage will possibly go up significantly.

would be strange if this was the one govt policy which is actually forward thinking to address a future problem rather than reactionary...

i think it's more to do with the fact that it won't be too expensive for the govt to fund, but they can paint it as a grand gesture that benefits all formerly "hard working" pensioners.

bankhater_1965

the ideas today will not come in because im convinced its a 1 term goverment anyway

no_debt

all a load of bull me for example left school at sixteen 1981 i had 50 pound dole for 2 weeks got a job and have worked since then , paid my tax and ni ,
now ny house is paid off i live with no debts because i worked for it , 75 % of my familey ie marrige , they have left school have had kids given house live free not paying anything in to the pot boys and girls , there is no way the goverment will get one penny off my house ( ok 50 quid } i hope my kids are rubbing there hands with glee at there share. they are my kids i brought them into this world and they will get there share of this house i will not go into care , yet 75% of my family will they have paid nothing in and will take everything out from leaving school and i that have not lived off the goverment has to pay for them . screw them and all the do gooders that i hope will reply to this .