Talk of raising the cap on care home fees

ILW

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Isn't timing the key factor? Leave it too late and you are on a hiding to nothing?

It does appear that way. I think some are also badly written.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...If you wait until you know it is likely you will need care, then the primary reason would be assumed to be deprivation of assets, and the trust can be overturned....

to be fair H you only brought this scheme up as a way for people with hefty savings to get the taxpayer to pay for their healthcare. kind of strange that you also seem to be saying that it's only really usable as such if it's primarily serving another purpose.

more generally if these schemes take off in a big way then the taxman will go after them, for sure. outside of london £50k will easily pay a two-bit lawyer's entire yearly salary. and a lawyer dedicated to this all year would be able to take many, many cases. the stakes are really high... & it's exceptionally immoral, relatively wealthy people looking to get massive taxpayer handouts at the end of their lives.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

True, but many of these have been set up by local solicitors or will writing companies. These will not attempt to defend at no cost.

Well, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys...

As I say, if the trust is set up correctly, for the right reasons, and early enough, it is essentially bulletproof and good luck to any council trying to take on one of the top firms that specialise in this field.

The councils have been spanked so often in this regard they should know by now they're on a hiding to nothing with well set up trusts, and avoid challenging them.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

the_flying_pig wrote: »

outside of london £50k will easily pay a two-bit lawyer's entire yearly salary. and a lawyer dedicated to this all year would be able to take many, many cases.

And lose them all, if the trusts are set up properly.

I am absolutely delighted that more people are using this kind of legal means to protect their assets.

It is deeply immoral for the councils to try and steal private property from taxpayers that have already paid for cradle to grave care through their contributions to national insurance and through exorbitantly high levels of general taxation.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

...It is deeply immoral for the councils to try and steal private property from taxpayers that have already paid for cradle to grave care through their contributions to national insurance and through exorbitantly high levels of general taxation.

the sense in which a council could sensibly be said to be "steal"ing money from a modestly well off person who they were in the process of writing an extraordinarily hefty [five figures, maybe even six in the case of a long dotage] cheque to, looking for a small contribution in return, is, well, how can i put it, it's quite a narrow sense. especially when the average person gets more out of the state than they put in over their lifetime & much of the value of the "private property" that you refer to has nothing to do with the graft or craft of the owner and everything to do with government policy.

but hey, as you keep telling us, the oldies deserve it, to a man. god bless 'em.

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well, if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys...

As I say, if the trust is set up correctly, for the right reasons, and early enough, it is essentially bulletproof and good luck to any council trying to take on one of the top firms that specialise in this field.

The councils have been spanked so often in this regard they should know by now they're on a hiding to nothing with well set up trusts, and avoid challenging them.

What if the only true reason is to avoid care fees?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

What if the only true reason is to avoid care fees?

Well given that assets in trust avoid probate fees, and setting up a trust is cheaper than probate in most cases, it would be rather difficult to establish that the only benefit is avoiding care fees......;)

GeorgeHowell

With improved health care keeping many more people alive until the dementia kicks in, this is clearly a major and growing issue.

To cover it all out of taxation would to some extent address the problem of the prudent being penalised in favour of the profligate. But since that is government policy in a number of areas, and the required tax hikes would be politically unacceptable that isn't going to happen.

Many people's preocuppation with preserving their property and estates takes some understanding because the majority will be too old and/or mentally debilitated to know or care by the time it happens. It's probably the anticipation of it happening that jars, because many older people are preoccupied with leaving a substantial estate to their offspring. This in turn is a fairly modern phenomenon except among the very wealthy. My view is that if people get a windfall then good luck to them but nobody should be expecting, let alone demanding, it and certainly not planning their own financial future or well-being around it. The subtle, and often not so subtle, pressure placed upon some older people by their offspring to preserve their estates in a number of ways with a view to legacies is profoundly immoral and depressing.

Nevertheless it happpens. So clearly those concerned about it should participate in some sort of voluntary insurance scheme in order to smooth out the degree of chance, essentially between those who contract dementia and those who don't. The 'cap' whatever it may be would be like an insurance policy excess. It is probably better if it is government run, being the lesser of the evils compared with letting greedy and unscrupulous insurance companies get their hands on it. But apart from being publicly underwritten it should be self-funding, and if funding the premiums would be a problem then these could be deductible from the eventual estate, if that is preferred by the policy holder.

Errata

Over the years fewer and fewer people are in residential care, despite increasing numbers living longer.
The direction of travel is to keep people in their own homes with appropriate human and telemetry support. Why? Because it's cheaper and people fare better.

GeorgeHowell

Errata wrote: »

Over the years fewer and fewer people are in residential care, despite increasing numbers living longer.
The direction of travel is to keep people in their own homes with appropriate human and telemetry support. Why? Because it's cheaper and people fare better.

Not with moderate to severe dementia they don't. That needs full time professional care in a managed environment.