Protecting savings from nursing home costs

83dons

This may be slightly contentious but if someone pays tax all their life I don't believe they should lose all their savings to nursing home costs should they get ill in their old age.

My relative is currently paying about 600 a month for council sheltered accommodation in Scotland which is fine. Should her health take a turn for worse she may require a nursing home which I believe can be expensive and the council will just drain her savings.

What is best way to protect your savings to avoid them being touched by the government should a nursing home be required in the future? Give the assets to relatives now? Invest them in property here or abroad? Essentially she wants to ensure her assets go to her family and do not end up bring drained away through state nursing home charges. Get assets are less than the tax threshold for inheritance tax.

Archi_Bald

It is indeed contentious and totally wrong to think that tax payers should be funding part or all of the living costs of someone who has plenty of assets themselves.

You can read up about the law here: https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/means-tests-for-help-with-care-costs-how-they-work

Alter_ego

The best use of savings in these circumstances is to use them to pay for the best care you can afford.

Preserving them for the next generation should not be an option.

Or to put it more bluntly, why should I pay your relative's costs? I have also paid taxes all my life.

Bettie

we are paying £700 a week and in the process of selling the house to fund it. Next year the care act will be in force and there will be a cap on the amount spent so things may get easier and the money will last longer.

talexuser

Read up about deprivation of assets. The authorities are wise about these tricks and can look back through transactions over time to find deliberate defrauding of other taxpayers.

talexuser

p.s I understood the care cap applies only to nursing costs, not to accommodation costs, so the number of people who will be better off is much smaller than first assumed. The vast majority will pass on before reaching the limit, according to the average stays in residential care.

Bettie

talexuser wrote: »

p.s I understood the care cap applies only to nursing costs, not to accommodation costs, so the number of people who will be better off is much smaller than first assumed. The vast majority will pass on before reaching the limit, according to the average stays in residential care.

Yes I read that too. Hopefully our relative will be there longer than the average time. It will still be expensive for her though.

redpete

As others have responded - why should my taxes pay for someone's care to ensure that their relatives inherit more money?

saintalan

redpete wrote: »

As others have responded - why should my taxes pay for someone's care to ensure that their relatives inherit more money?

...or who decide to fritter their money away on an expesive lifestyle?

It's a similar argument to being able to take your pension at 55 and squander it.

Deprivation of assets is therefor contentious in itself, is it fair that some save and some dont, is it fair some cruise it away?

I dont think you can blame individuals, either Deprivation should be better mandated or maybe we should pay through a form of insurance, state (NIC) or personal.

Dont have the answers but its not a one sided debate.

Cheers

Alan

Keep_pedalling

But it is not really costing your relative, it's costing those who would have inherited this unspent money. Your relative is nearing the end of their life and have assets which can help them have a decent quality of life, if there is anything left then that is a bonus, but inheriting money is a bit like winning the lottery, it's nice if it happens but it's pure luck and it's unearned money.

If my wife and I need care later in life we won't be taking it from a short list of LA care homes, it will be one of our choice. We have built up enough savings to make sure if nessasary we will have the best available, but if we don't need it the children will have had their lottery win.

Gadfium

83dons wrote: »

This may be slightly contentious but if someone pays tax all their life I don't believe they should lose all their savings to nursing home costs should they get ill in their old age.

But you appear to have absolutely no problem with total strangers (other taxpayers) paying for your relatives care?

83dons wrote: »

My relative is currently paying about 600 a month for council sheltered accommodation in Scotland which is fine. Should her health take a turn for worse she may require a nursing home which I believe can be expensive and the council will just drain her savings.

If she can afford it, then she should pay for it. Socail Welfare is designed for those that can't afford it, and not for the greedy relatives that don't want their potential inheritance disappearing before their eyes.

83dons wrote: »

What is best way to protect your savings to avoid them being touched by the government should a nursing home be required in the future?

When she shops for food does she go to the local food bank? After all, why should she pay for food when others are getting free grub? She's worked hard all her life, saved her money for her relatives...why should she pay for her Heinz Beans when others are getting it free? Why should she put profits in the hand of the big supermarkets when others don't?
Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? But it's pretty much the same argument that you are using.

83dons wrote: »

Essentially she wants to ensure her assets go to her family and do not end up bring drained away through state nursing home charges. Get assets are less than the tax threshold for inheritance tax.

So she wants to break the law?

I make no apologies for being harsh, but your view and the view of your relative is shocking. I hope that at some point you realise how greedy you both appear.