'Pay When You Die' proposed for elderly needing care

grizzly1911

BobQ wrote: »

Nothing. They can do it at present and some do, or transfer the assets to their relatives.

The wealthy have usually side stepped IHT and they would find away to ensure they only paid for themselves if this became "Insurance" backed too.

Our leading politicians appear to be the beneficiaries of such plans.

chewmylegoff

BobQ wrote: »

Maybe what is wrong is the way you are looking at it! My suggestion is no different than having compulsory private insurance in which the many pay small premiums in order that the few do not have to worry about the potentially high cost of
a claim. I have never made a claim on my car insurance in 40 years of motoring yet we all appreciate that we cannot allow people to opt out of paying it.

In some respects I agree that those who can pay should do so and that nobody should expect to inherit money, but the question is how should they pay. A death tax really comes down to whether you believe that a small number of individuals who lose the lottery should pay the full cost or whether you believe that we should insure against losing this lottery.

You say where do we stop, well we could go the other way and remove all tax and make people pay for all services they use education, heath, council, etc. But in the real world, care costs are an issue and a worry to individuals. The proposed system will only help the wealthy. For the rest, there will be no incentive to save at all.

There is already insurance in place - once your assets are exhausted or if you have none, the govt will pick up he tab. No-one is going without care here. The issue is with a small number of people who don't have sufficient assets aside from their house to fund it.

I can see that there are a couple of issues that need addressing (I) if someone else is still living in the house then they shouldn't have to sell and move out and (II) it makes little sense for people who go into a home for a short period and then come out to have to sell heir home.

However this is a tiny minority. The proposed change in policy is designed to solve a problem which actually doesn't exist. It's not like people are having their assets stolen by the government, and just what is the point in having insurance which covers the cost of your care and leaves you in possession of a house at the end of it, when at then end of it you are dead! I don't think I would sign up to that policy!

System

What most people read into the words "Old people being forced to sell their homes to pay for care" is that the state at some time takes the house instead of it being passed onto the children.
Obviously those with houses resent it, those without resent those who have. It's all about inheritance, but it doesn't address the point one way or the other.

It is quite straightforward with foresight to avoid the problem anyway, by suitable house tenure and wills leaving the portion of the house in trust. If the old person doesn't own the house, having disposed of it long enough ago for care not to have been a consideration, then the question does not arise.

The people hit are those aged 80 suddenly needing care who have done no planning. They are 20 years too late.