We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Can you create a trust to avoid losing inheritance to a means tested caring costs
Comments
-
I think it WAS earned, by YOU in tax you paid over the years, these were just the allowances over that period. In your position I would start gifting them.
60% on capital gains on money you already paid tax on has always seemed unfair to me.
Of course the super wealthy like Cameron and Osbourne have their trusts, but the obedient citizen gets hammered.
Where did the 60% CGT come from, the most you can pay is 28% and that is for selling property you don't live in. We have never paid a penny in CGT and never will because we are gradually moving everything over to a ISA wrapper and only liquidising gains up to our annual allowances.
Most people who are reasonably well off can minimise both GGT and IHT without resorting to trusts. Gifting is one way, which we do alongside having a second death insurence policy which covers any tax due on gifts should we not survive 7 years. You should also spend more on yourselves, as there is no point in scrimping and saving when you already have more than enough assets to see out the rest of your years.0 -
"unable" is a very vague term. Caring for someone 24/7 is very draining, inconveniencing a person's life. I said nothing of bringing in EU nannies (only I know someone who went EU); my initial thought was Philippine girls who have trained to be nurses who would be more suitable than a generic nanny and give them some CV experience/a foothold in the UK. I said nothing about prostitution, but Anna Nicole SmithIn my family two very capable adults could not cope with the needs of a parent who suffered with dementia, the idea that an EU "nanny" is ridiculous and it is somewhat sexist to think you can prostitute a young girl to an old man.
Including plastic surgery/breast implants?I like the idea of everyone having free medical care should they need it
Presumably it is an essential situation unless the person wants to go into a home to have more of a social life?but I don't think everyone should have free residential care. Maybe it's because one is an essential situation and one isn't.
The same is the case with a rich person receiving medical treatment; tax payer pays and their vast wealth goes to their children.Maybe it's because I don't the idea of taxpayers paying a lot of money for someones care just so an individual can inherit money they're not entitled to.Mortgage (Nov 15): £79,950 | Mortgage (May 19): £71,754 | Mortgage (Sep 22): £0
Cashback sites: £900 | £30k in 2016: £30,300 (101%)0 -
When you refer to 'medical treatment' do you mean NHS?The same is the case with a rich person receiving medical treatment; tax payer pays and their vast wealth goes to their children.
Isn't there a possibility that a 'rich person' has paid a substantial amount of tax and national insurance into the system over their working life?
I'd be less likely to begrudge them treatment on the NHS than those people who come into this country and avail themselves of free treatment on the NHS having paid sod all towards that treatment.0 -
Including plastic surgery/breast implants?
No, I don't think this should be covered, along with things like IVF. However this is a different conversation entirely.Presumably it is an essential situation unless the person wants to go into a home to have more of a social life?
It's not essential at all, their family could care for them. However I can't imagine most children could perform heart surgery on their parents.The same is the case with a rich person receiving medical treatment; tax payer pays and their vast wealth goes to their children.
Not necessarily, they'd have to pay care home fees too!
Look, I consider it different. Maybe it's not that logical but I see a difference between NHS care and residential care. I like the fact that people in this country are guaranteed (in theory) a minimum level of medical care and income. I don't feel residential care fits into this.
Maybe all care should be provided for free but no inheritance exists, with all assets upon death being handed to the state.0 -
When my husband was terminally ill, he was discharged from the hospital under NHS Continuing Care and, as they could not say when he would die, the hospice wouldn't take him so he went into a local nursing home where he lived for about a month.
He didn't have to pay for this as the NHS picked up the (£900 a week) bill.
I don't understand why he was different to the Alzheimers patients who lived in the home and who were paying their own bills but was grateful not to be presented with a bill nonetheless.
As a really simplified version of this just consider if the person should be in hospital or not. Someone who receives continuing care has severe medical needs and would ordinarily be in a hospital, but due to the shortage of beds they effective pay someone else to look after the person for them, hence why it's 'free'. Some people believe all residential care should be funded by this but it's really not what it's for.
Most people with dementia shouldn't be in a hospital, even if they can't care for themselves at home.0 -
"unable" is a very vague term. Caring for someone 24/7 is very draining, inconveniencing a person's life. I said nothing of bringing in EU nannies (only I know someone who went EU); my initial thought was Philippine girls who have trained to be nurses who would be more suitable than a generic nanny and give them some CV experience/a foothold in the UK. I said nothing about prostitution, but Anna Nicole Smith Including plastic surgery/breast implants?Presumably it is an essential situation unless the person wants to go into a home to have more of a social life?The same is the case with a rich person receiving medical treatment; tax payer pays and their vast wealth goes to their children.
No you said "young girls" and suggested they would marry the men for money.
It is oxymoronic to say "Philippine girls who have trained to be nurses girls who have trained to be nurses" because training period they would not be young.
I did see Filipino carers on Panorama programme about abuse, not tarring with same brush but you do get what you pay for. I have seen care home lose all continuity of care by using agency staff.
Again more sexist comments, you are just trying to goad.
You seem to see all women as "girls".Please be nice to all MoneySavers. That’s the forum motto. Remember, the prime aim is to help provide info and resources. If you don’t like someone, their situation, their question or feel they’re intruding on ‘your board’ then please bite the bullet and think of the bigger issue. :cool::)0 -
"unable" is a very vague term. Caring for someone 24/7 is very draining, inconveniencing a person's life. I said nothing of bringing in EU nannies (only I know someone who went EU); my initial thought was Philippine girls who have trained to be nurses who would be more suitable than a generic nanny and give them some CV experience/a foothold in the UK. I said nothing about prostitution, but Anna Nicole SmithIncluding plastic surgery/breast implants?Presumably it is an essential situation unless the person wants to go into a home to have more of a social life?The same is the case with a rich person receiving medical treatment; tax payer pays and their vast wealth goes to their children.
My aunt's mother had a live in Filipino nurse.
My aunt told me she was wonderful and took great care of her mother.
I met her at a family party and she did seem lovely.
So if it works it is an option.0 -
You see Filipino girls advertising on GumTree...0
-
They probably have. A substantial part of which probably goes towards free care home access to other people but not themselves. Then after a lifetime of paying substantial tax/NI and their own care fees, IHT sticks the boot in too.Isn't there a possibility that a 'rich person' has paid a substantial amount of tax and national insurance into the system over their working life?
Unless they have no family left. And their last wish is to donate their life savings to a dogs trust, but that wish is taken away from them (or does deprivation not count if it's a charitable donation?)It's not essential at all, their family could care for them.
Young is a matter of perception, e.g. someone in their 20s/30s/40s marrying a pensioner on their death bed. Would a nurse do this for citizenship? Some might. There's definitely lots of young girls with pensioners in their own country but generally from backgrounds too poor to study nursing.No you said "young girls" and suggested they would marry the men for money.
They graduate in 4 years. If you don't class 22 as young...the bear may be watching youIt is oxymoronic to say "Philippine girls who have trained to be nurses girls who have trained to be nurses" because training period they would not be young.
The British carers were just as likely to abuse, even if it is through neglect rather than actual violence or "just give him these pills to shut him up"I did see Filipino carers on Panorama programme about abuse, not tarring with same brush but you do get what you pay for.Mortgage (Nov 15): £79,950 | Mortgage (May 19): £71,754 | Mortgage (Sep 22): £0
Cashback sites: £900 | £30k in 2016: £30,300 (101%)0 -
The same is the case with a rich person receiving medical treatment; tax payer pays and their vast wealth goes to their children.When you refer to 'medical treatment' do you mean NHS?
Isn't there a possibility that a 'rich person' has paid a substantial amount of tax and national insurance into the system over their working life?
I'd be less likely to begrudge them treatment on the NHS than those people who come into this country and avail themselves of free treatment on the NHS having paid sod all towards that treatment.They probably have. A substantial part of which probably goes towards free care home access to other people but not themselves. Then after a lifetime of paying substantial tax/NI and their own care fees, IHT sticks the boot in too.
It might be the way I'm reading it but it sounds to me like you're contradicting yourself
Moaning that 'the tax payer' funds a rich person's medical care then agreeing with me that the 'rich person' has probably paid a lot of money through taxation and NI.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards