Protecting savings from nursing home costs

Gadfium

83dons wrote: »

Refer above comments to para 1 if my post. I understand this is contentious but if someone pays all their life towards tax and national insurance they should get free healthcare from cradle to grave IMO

Why should they?

83dons wrote: »

and not see their life savings frittered away.

Interesting choice of words. I find it particularly repellent that you consider the money spent on providing the care and support to make your Nan's last years as comfortable as possible, as money "frittered away".
You might want to have a long, hard look in the mirror at yourself.

83dons wrote: »

I have no doubt there is a way for someone to invest any assets to avoid this happening pm me if you don't feel confident to put on a public forum..

So you want people to advise you on benefit fraud???

Mistermeaner

Think being a tad harsh on op

I personally agree with desire to pass on as much of estate as possible, I would want my heirs to get mad benefit from my hard work and savings

Fully appreciate the frustration that having worked hard, paid taxes and saved that it can get stripped away, where as someone who either did not bother working or !!!!ed all their money up the wall gets the same care.

I believe to some extent in that those who can afford to pay should pay but current balance is wrong. There should perhaps be some form if tax rebate going back a number of years..... same applies for redundancies - I think it's so unfair that someone with a mortgage who is made redundant has to basically lose everything before the state helps them out, where as someone who never bothered working gets everything handed to them.

bigadaj

There's always dignitas of course, though travel costs would have to be factored in.

missbiggles1

ggb1979 wrote: »

Think being a tad harsh on op

I personally agree with desire to pass on as much of estate as possible, I would want my heirs to get mad benefit from my hard work and savings

Fully appreciate the frustration that having worked hard, paid taxes and saved that it can get stripped away, where as someone who either did not bother working or !!!!ed all their money up the wall gets the same care.

I believe to some extent in that those who can afford to pay should pay but current balance is wrong. There should perhaps be some form if tax rebate going back a number of years..... same applies for redundancies - I think it's so unfair that someone with a mortgage who is made redundant has to basically lose everything before the state helps them out, where as someone who never bothered working gets everything handed to them.

That just isn't true. Although those with a mortgage have to wait for 3 months to claim SMI, all other benefits are payable immediately.

Mistermeaner

I stand corrected then. I have no idea what smi is.

Could you walk me through what happens if I lose my job tomorrow. Assume no savings or debt apart from mortgage which is 600/month

Pincher

The children are a bunch of ungrateful selfish brats who don't want to change their parent's nappies, in essence.


What if we give them an incentive to change the nappies?


Currently, if the parent(s) sign over the house, but still live in it, the HMRC says that is tax avoidance, so even if it's after seven years, you still have to pay inheritance tax.


What if they change the rules so the parent CAN stay? Provided the heir is registered as the carer, the house is IHT free after seven years? Suddenly, the nappy changing seems so worthwhile.


Obviously, expect a huge rise in parent abuse cases.

missbiggles1

ggb1979 wrote: »

I stand corrected then. I have no idea what smi is.

Could you walk me through what happens if I lose my job tomorrow. Assume no savings or debt apart from mortgage which is 600/month

https://www.gov.uk/support-for-mortgage-interest/how-to-claim

https://www.gov.uk/jobseekers-allowance/how-to-claim

https://www.gov.uk/apply-council-tax-reduction

coyrls

What I find really odd about this question, which seems to come up fairly regularly, is the assumption that the state is paying for some sort of luxury care that people with money could only dream about. The question seems to be how can I get rid of my money because it couldn't possibly buy me the same standard of care that would be provided by the state for free if I didn't have any money?

The second thing I find really odd is the idea that paying for care is a waste of money. Personally I couldn't think of a better use for money in old age than using it to ensure a comfortable life, it's certainly what I plan to do with my money.

summersetsheep

Old age is just another part of life. Nobody is taking money from you, it is just the cost of care.

I do not want to pay my rent or pay for travel into work but unfortunately that is just life.

I kind of feel that by trying to avoid it, you're using up my taxes on something that could be better spent on education or hospitals. Not protecting your inheritance.

DiamondLil

coyrls wrote: »

I find really odd is the idea that paying for care is a waste of money. Personally I couldn't think of a better use for money in old age than using it to ensure a comfortable life, it's certainly what I plan to do with my money.

Couldn't agree more; if I decide to spend my remaining years and money flitting from one luxury holiday hotel to another, and/or on a series of expensive cruising holidays, no-one bats an eyelid.
If I need to spend it on being well looked after in care homes / nursing homes, suddenly it's theft on the part of the state, or me "frittering it away" or "losing everything".