Nursing care benefit and 'giving away' money

seven-day-weekend

Hmmmm....maybe good news? Especially for people my age (Late 50s).

Although how many changes of Government will there be by the date quoted?????

Errata

Thanks for the link, interesting reading and the green paper will be even more interesting. My view is that there is a distinct flavour of jam tomorrow and talk is cheap. It's worth remembering that no government in recent times has had the will or the cash to bring the state retirement pension in line with earnings, and no sign in the future of that happening - labour governments prefer means testing !

mary43

I want to thank you all for your advice. Very useful stuff.
All this only cropped up with me when mum had a stroke and had to sell her house and go into a home but at least where she is, if she had no money at all she could still have stayed there. Brilliantly run -I could't wish for a better place.
I just want to tie up loose ends and make things right for myself and my kids.
Their dad died when they were very young and I always see my home as rightfully theirs and so want them to have at least the bulk of it, if not all.
I've worked most of my life, so had my current husband and he agrees with me and wants my kids to benefit.
Luckily, with Mum, she bought the flat she is now in, all within the care home and she's happy that the plans she made with my dad before he died will go ahead,despite her illness. She has a bad enough guilt complex about being immobile and 'putting the staff out' as she puts it, by asking for help when she needs it, plus she feels bad that me and my brother visit more often than we might have............he's in Spain and I'm miles away. We always visited regular anyway and would have carried on but Mum seems to think she's putting everyone out. At least knowing that her cash is safe and will come to us as she planned makes her feel better in herself.
Interesting article in the Independant by the way.
There will always be mixed views on this topic I'm sure and its interesting reading the different points made.

Errata

Mary, it's good to hear that things have turned out as everyone wished.
The cost of care is a very thorny problem. For example, people wishing care of older people to be part met by local government but not wishing their council tax to be increased to pay for it.

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

It's worth remembering that no government in recent times has had the will or the cash to bring the state retirement pension in line with earnings, and no sign in the future of that happening..

In the Pensions Bill early this year, scheduled for 2012 or the end of the next parliament at the latest.

We should also IMHO give credit for the changes from 2010 to the state pension, which will increase the numbers of women getting the full basic from 30% to 70% overnight.

Errata

EdInvestor wrote: »

In the Pensions Bill early this year, scheduled for 2012 or the end of the next parliament at the latest.

We should also IMHO give credit for the changes from 2010 to the state pension, which will increase the numbers of women getting the full basic from 30% to 70% overnight.

Ed, I take your point but of course there could easily be a change of government before then and another and different pensions bill.
I give no credit to a government which rewards people for not making provision. I feel I have been penalised because I acted responsibly and did so. I should have thrown self reliance to the wind and refused to contribute to society in any way, shape or form. Am I angry? I certainly am.

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

I give no credit to a government which rewards people for not making provision. I feel I have been penalised because I acted responsibly and did so. I should have thrown self reliance to the wind and refused to contribute to society in any way, shape or form. Am I angry? I certainly am.

But the improvement to the state pension is not a case of rewarding people who have made no provision.As I'm sure you're aware the old National Insurance rules penalised people who worked part time, had low earnings, or worked intermittently, perhaps fitting a job around their caring responsibilities. Home responsibilities credits didn't come in until 1978, and the scandal of the 'small stamp" excludes many women from a full pension.

Under the new rules everyone who works will get an appropriate pension.Those who don't work will be on means-tested benefits.

Where is the need to be angry?

seven-day-weekend

Yes Edinvestor I think it is much fairer, even to the people who paid 'small' stamp as from what I've read on here they didn't know (for some reason) that they wouldn't get a pension by doing that.

I have done quite a lot of part-time work where I didn't earn enough to pay any NI, for about thirteen years, but my HRP covers that and then I worked more and paid my own full stamp. But for people who could only ever do part-time/low earnings and were already on maximum HRP, or never qualified for it it's certainly much fairer. As you say, everyone who has worked gets something.

Errata

Why am I angry? Because I used my hard earned money to provide for my retirement and I now find the tax I'm paying is funding those who didn't do this.
Sorry 7DW, every married woman who chose to pay a small stamp was advised by the national insurance people it would NOT provide them with a pension. That information was given to them so they could make an informed judgement about their future. Some women now regret the choice they made but they can't say they were never informed.

seven-day-weekend

Errata, I always knew that if I didn't pay the full stamp, I wouldn't get a pension (or indeed any other benefits). But according to these boards there are a lot who apparently didn't know. I don't understand it either.

But the new scheme IS a lot fairer for people who through family or other circumstances were not able to earn enough to pay NI. They were still working. They should not be penalised because they were unable to contribute. These are not people who were unwilling to contribute, it is those who were unable.