can we give are kids are home

JuneBow

If you and your wife are sole owners of the property, then, yes, the house will be taken into account for means testing if you require LA accommodation.
If your sons are incapacitated, then the house would be disregarded.
However, I am assuming that this is not the case.
The house will, however, be disregarded for means testing if you and your wife are joint owners with your sons.
If you therefore, gift or sell 1% of the property to your sons they will become joint owners and so the property would be disregarded.
Look at CRAG. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216221/dh_125836.pdf

Battybird

Mojisola wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer pay care home fees so that they can own a house after you've gone?

I think that all care homes should be free. I don't think that it is fair that people who have scraped all their lives to pay a morgage cannot leave their property to their relatives.


I don't think I have read very often on here, posters complaining about people who have wasted every penny they have had throughout their lives, then get free care.

And I believe, after a council tenant dies, the tenancy can be passed to a relative. (?) In my mind, this is like leaving an inheritance to the relative, even though rent will have to be paid.

Where would the money to pay for this come from? Maybe from changing the benefit system. eg. child allowance only paid for the first two children, and less immigration.

I may be dreaming, but don't Scotland have free care? If so why there and not here?

(have to go offline now, but I will prepare myself for a backlash of replies.)

Principia_2

While I don't disagree with your premise that it would be nice to offer care for the elderly for free there are a few problems with your ideas on how to save money and reallocate it to pay for care for the elderly.

child allowance only paid for the first two children

The reason child allowance is paid is to encourage more children because more children equals more workers, more economic demand and more taxes. Less children obviously the opposite.

Battybird wrote: »

... less immigration.

Again more migrants mean more workers - immigrants, as a group, pay more in taxes than they claim in benefits, they haven't been expensively educated and they are more likely to go back to their country of origin when finished working rather than claiming an expensive state pension here. They also increase economic demand while they are here.

However they do put a downward pressure on workers rights and salaries as obviously they ensure demand for jobs outstrips supply.

Overall though less immigration means less money overall for pretty much the same reason as reducing payments for children, it reduces economic demand.

Both your money saving ideas will result in a smaller population, less people spend less money which results in reduction and not expansion of the economy, no growth, less taxes, less money for the Govt to spend on the niceties of life, like paying for care for people who already have assets.

Perhaps better money saving options would be paying less on wars (means we have to accept we are not really a world power anymore) and increasing corporate taxation.

Mojisola

Battybird wrote: »

I think that all care homes should be free.

Why should an elderly person who manages to live in their own home (with help from family and carers) until they die have to buy their own food, pay for heating and lighting, maintenance, insurance and all other bills if people in care homes are getting everything for free?

zygurat789

Principia wrote: »

Both your money saving ideas will result in a smaller population, less people spend less money which results in reduction and not expansion of the economy, no growth, less taxes, less money for the Govt to spend on the niceties of life, like paying for care for people who already have assets.

Perhaps better money saving options would be paying less on wars (means we have to accept we are not really a world power anymore) and increasing corporate taxation.

Don't you read the papers? Don't you know about Google Amazon Starbucks et al?
What we need, and have needed ever since 1945 is a lot more exports so that we can pay our way in the world and not devalue our currency regularly. Then, maybe, we could afford to pay ourselves more in benefits.

Battybird

Mojisola wrote: »

Why should an elderly person who manages to live in their own home (with help from family and carers) until they die have to buy their own food, pay for heating and lighting, maintenance, insurance and all other bills if people in care homes are getting everything for free?

Maybe I shouldn't have said that care homes should be free. I should have said that care home residents should pay most of their pension and any carers allowance they may be receiving, but no more. I think that a lot of pensioners living in their own homes manage to pay their bills out of their pension.



(Another bugbear of mine is prisoners. They get free heating, lighting, food etc.)

Battybird

Principia wrote: »

Again more migrants mean more workers - immigrants, as a group, pay more in taxes than they claim in benefits, they haven't been expensively educated and they are more likely to go back to their country of origin when finished working rather than claiming an expensive state pension here. They also increase economic demand while they are here.

Will they not be allowed to retire to their home country, but still claim a pension from this country?

And I wish the population of this country would go down, then maybe school leavers could choose what they wanted to do with their lives. When our age group left school we mainly had a job choice, rather than having to send off application after application.

John_Pierpoint

The main difference is that the Cost of Capital charge is no longer included in expenditure from 1 April 2010

I don't know if that statement translates into "......and that is excluding the mortgage paying for the prison".

Which every way you look at it prisoners produce next to nothing and the hotel accommodation costs a fortune.

Bring back the chain gang ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218347/prison-costs-summary-10-11.pdf

paddedjohn

OP, its unlikely that you would need the services of a care home but if you did couldn't your 2 grown up sons look after you at home?

zygurat789

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

The main difference is that the Cost of Capital charge is no longer included in expenditure from 1 April 2010

I don't know if that statement translates into "......and that is excluding the mortgage paying for the prison".

Which every way you look at it prisoners produce next to nothing and the hotel accommodation costs a fortune.

Bring back the chain gang ?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/218347/prison-costs-summary-10-11.pdf

This is because the purpose of prisons are misunderstood. They are not for punishment or rehabilitation but to protect the general population from those inside. What is needed is a lot more secure prisons and less clip-on devices and open prisons (now there's an oxymoron). Where do we put them to avoid nimbyism, well off the top of my head how about Wylva, Dounreay, Sizewell etc?