Protecting savings from nursing home costs

talexuser

Bettie wrote: »

It will still be expensive for her though.

Yes, we are paying ~34k a year for my mum. Luckily I looked after her isas for the past 25 years, so transferred them to monthly income funds, together with her pensions are ok for the forseeable.

Mojisola

83dons wrote: »

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.

The 'council' won't drain her savings - if she is self-funding, she will have a contract with the residential home and will pay their bills, just as she pays a mortgage or rent and utility bills while living at home.

saintalan

Gadfium wrote: »

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

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.

So is this Deprivation of Assets Avoidance or Evasion?

System

redpete wrote: »

why should my taxes pay for someone's care to ensure that their relatives inherit more money?

Perhaps for the same reason that your taxes pay for someone's education or health care, so saving them from paying for these expensive items privately?

As long as you believe that the state should provide any subsidised assistance to anybody, then it will be inevitable that you will pay some of those costs through your taxes.
That's how a welfare state works.

atush

I think the point is, at this point the state doesn't owe the OPs relative any assistance.

We aren't saying that those who need assistance should not get it.

Daniel54

saintalan wrote: »

So is this Deprivation of Assets Avoidance or Evasion?

Avoidance is working within the rules,evasion is contravening the rules.

If you are deemed to have deliberately deprived yourself of assets ( and that can include unusually lavish spending) then you have contravened the rules.

Gadfium

saintalan wrote: »

So is this Deprivation of Assets Avoidance or Evasion?

The play on words is noted.
Deprivation of Assets, if proven, is evasion.

saintalan

To me this debate goes back to NHS 'Cradle to Grave'

I dont really know the history but since the LA are responsible for Care it is them that go after your money.

If you have a cold you can visit the doctor for free if it turns to something nasty you can get hospital treatment free.

Go to the doctor and get diagnosed with dementia and eventually deemed suitable for care, they will be after your money providing you haven't frittered it away.

I speak from experience when I say how hard you have to fight within the rules to get NHS fully funded care for someone.

This is a subject that government dont really want to deal with so they create a manual (CRAIG) to put the majority off.

In general I agree that we should be responsible for the B&B element of care which will continue after April '16, but we are still left with the debate about means testing.

This is a good debate for this site and I hope it can continue all views are worth expression.

Cheers

Alan

83dons

It's about the principle of free health care in this country. Care should be free from cradle to grave and whether you like it or not your taxes pay for this regardless if whether a tramp or Richard Branson required cancer treament. a disturbing distinction is being drawn here that when someone requires care in old age they then have to start paying for it? Surely this notion is wrong and goes against the principles of healthcare in this country! People can pm any solutions they have come up with rather than enter into this contentious debate if they would prefer!

Keep_pedalling

When the NHS was launched the gap between cradle and grave was on average much shorter, and there was a greater tradition of families looking after their elderly relatives than there is today, so the model is broken.

As a nation we probably could afford to do this but baring in mind it would require a large increase in taxes to do it it is hardly going to be a vote winner so politicians hands are tied somewhat.