Care fees to be limited to £35K, Cameron pledges to end forcing elderly to sell homes

Gracchus_Babeuf

abaxas wrote: »

They are the ones paying for it.

So any retired person needing care is a 'chav'?

treliac

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Moreover, preserving assets to be passed down to future generations is not a bad thing for the economy, and will help future pensioners to have some extra money to live on when they get old. This will reduce the need for the state to pay out means tested benefits.

We are supposed to have been told by now (wasn't it declared in the budget?) when the universal retirement pension of c. £7k per annum is to be introduced.

At that point the plan is apparently to terminate means tested benefits for retired people which, as I understand it, is intended to encourage people to save and provide for their own old age. Means tested benefits discourage many from bothering.

BobQ

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Rubbish. There are lots of reasons why inheritance benefits society and the economy as a whole. The passing down of assets over generations helps to increase national wealth and helps the economy to grow more rapidly. It also helps to reduce payments of means tested benefits.

How do you prove this. Transferring assets from one person to another does not increase wealth, particularly when the HMRC takes a slice. How does this help the economy grow?

treliac

[/QUOTE]

BobQ wrote: »

How do you prove this. Transferring assets from one person to another does not increase wealth, particularly when the HMRC takes a slice. How does this help the economy grow?

In fact HMRC rarely takes a slice. Statistics from year 2009-10 as follows:

There were 264,907 estates in 2009-10 notified for probate which is
approximately 47 % of all deaths. Of these, 14,629 were taxpaying estates,
approximately 3 % of all deaths in that year.

Taken from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/inheritance_tax/commentary.pdf

and another thing too many people worry unnecessarily about.

grizzly1911

treliac wrote: »

We are supposed to have been told by now (wasn't it declared in the budget?) when the universal retirement pension of c. £7k per annum is to be introduced.

At that point the plan is apparently to terminate means tested benefits for retired people which, as I understand it, is intended to encourage people to save and provide for their own old age. Means tested benefits discourage many from bothering.

Means testing will simply be called something else and come out of a different pot. Result will be the same.

7k on its own simply isn't enough for those who haven't , couldn't provide especially if you don't own your own home.

Gracchus_Babeuf

BobQ wrote: »

How do you prove this. Transferring assets from one person to another does not increase wealth, particularly when the HMRC takes a slice. How does this help the economy grow?

How does it help the economy to see people selling their houses and then wasting the proceeds on long term care? At least money passed down can be spent in the general economy.

John_Pierpoint

oldvicar wrote: »

I think I would rather be required to spend all my own money first, and if I survive long enough be promised that the taxpeyer will continue to keep me in a DECENT standard of care.

The prospect of living years in thye sort of places LA's currently afford and dying rich simply doesn't hold the same attraction.

So spend the money on improving standards rather than saving inheritances, although I like the idea of increasing the means test a bit to say the suggested £100k so that people have something to pass on.

By the time you get to spend the last few years in a care/nursing home in your late 80s there is a good chance you will institutionalised, you won't know what day of the week it is, perhaps not even know where you are. [- Is that my sister? No she died 20 years ago!]
To whom have you given "welfare" lasting power of attorney, as it will be their choice of where to put you.

John_Pierpoint

treliac wrote: »

In fact HMRC rarely takes a slice. Statistics from year 2009-10 as follows:

There were 264,907 estates in 2009-10 notified for probate which is
approximately 47 % of all deaths. Of these, 14,629 were taxpaying estates,
approximately 3 % of all deaths in that year.

Taken from http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/inheritance_tax/commentary.pdf

and another thing too many people worry unnecessarily about.

Very useful statistics and my initial reaction was "look how many people die in debt or worth virtually nothing" (estate < £5K):
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm05113.htm

On reflection there are probably a number of estates that just rumble along because joint ownership means automatic transfer to the survivor regardless of the will or lack of a will.

oldvicar

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

By the time you get to spend the last few years in a care/nursing home in your late 80s there is a good chance you will institutionalised, you won't know what day of the week it is, perhaps not even know where you are. [- Is that my sister? No she died 20 years ago!]
To whom have you given "welfare" lasting power of attorney, as it will be their choice of where to put you.

I expect that there will be a conflict of interests - those I would trust with an LPA would most likely be a residuary beneficiary.

You can only hope they will do the decent thing and buy the very best that I can afford .... I shall promise to come back and haunt them if they don't

Apart from having a Will which gives the dogs/cats home the residue to remove any conflict, what can you do apart from trust your nearest and dearest?

N1AK

oldvicar wrote: »

You can only hope they will do the decent thing and buy the very best that I can afford .... I shall promise to come back and haunt them if they don't

All the more reason to want a decent future for future generations. If the only way a sizable proportion of children have of getting a decent amount of cash is waiting for their elders to kick the bucket don't be shocked by the consequences.