Really worried about my mother's home and my brother

Gavin83

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn would raise taxes to fund public services, for some reason it doesn't actually seem to be very popular even though so many people claim that's what they want!

I don't, particularly to pay for residential care.

gettingtheresometime

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Why would you need a Multinational Company Taxation Tsar to shame companies into paying tax which they can legitimately avoid paying? Would it not make more sense to change the tax laws to turn avoidance into evasion? Then you wouldn't have to shame the companies or hire a Tsar.

Or better still - and this is something we, the general public can do without any legislation - avoid spending our money with these companies.

A few years ago when this all blew up people were indignant but a quick visit to the sorting office showed that that indignance didn't extend to their Christmas present buying.

Spending money in the local independent shop - who does pay taxes - has the triple whammy of putting tax revenue in the country's coffers, keeping money in the local economy & keeping the high street alive

Primrose

I do think we've gone somewhat off thread here. In any case, it rather looks now as if the whole question may be revisited in the light of the reaction it has caused. I think the whole question of financing social care needs a much deeper public debate than it has received to date from any of the political parties because it won't go away and has to be funded somehow, preferably in a way that the majority of people would find socially and morally acceptable.


It's ironic, isn't it, that we're spending more money on a health system which helps to keep us alive for longer, which in in turn then means we have to find even more money again to care for us when things start going wrong medically, perhaps for different reasons, at a later stage. Dementia for example is now becoming more common because people are living longer and being treated for heart conditions, diabetes, etc, that a couple of generations ago would have caused them to die much earlier.


If we want a health services which treats us for these conditions, we surely have to face up to the reality that in saving us from one peril, it may well have to find the money from somewhere to treat us for something else at a later stage.


Maybe some kind of insurance is the answer for younger people going forward, but that won't resolve the problem for retired people who have missed that boat, and especially for people like OP's brother who has made a financial sacrifice for his mother's well being and now wonders how the State will treat him.

seven-day-weekend

jackieblack wrote: »

I completely agree.


Although I expect a lot of people feel that that is exactly what they thought they have been doing by paying their tax/NI payments all their working lives...

As far as I know, tax/NI has never been intended to pay for housekeeping costs (which is what part of the care home fee will consist of), or for someone to help you get dressed, cook you a meal and take you to the toilet. This is what social care is. NHS care, afaik, is still free.

Malthusian

Primrose wrote: »

Maybe some kind of insurance is the answer for younger people going forward

Like mobile phone insurance or other risks where the undesired event can be coped with, this is the kind of thing where it's usually better for people to self-fund. The risk of a 30-year-old acquiring dementia next year is extremely remote, so there is little benefit from paying premiums to an insurer knowing that they'll step in if they get dementia at age 31.

Rather than pay premiums to an insurer which they might never see again, it makes more sense to put the money aside in their own name. By the time said 30-year-old is of an age when the risk of acquiring dementia is material, the money saved by not paying dementia insurance premiums will have grown to a large enough sum to cover the cost. And if they don't get dementia, they can spend it on something else, or pass it to their family, whereas if they were paying insurance premiums the money would be wasted.

Over the course of the 50 years in which they are saving up against this possibility, they could invest their dementia-insurance-fund in an asset which could keep pace and maybe beat inflation over the long term. Like, dare I suggest it, a house.

Malthusian

happyandcontented wrote: »

Also, overnight create the post of Multinational Company taxation Tzar....whose sole job it was to shame/co erce/mandate companies to pay their full share of UK tax, all of which would go to the care system. How badly would it affect Amazon, Starbucks etc, if they were shown to be avoiding tax that was meant solely to fund care ?

So where every national newspaper, every political party and a host of lobbyist charities constantly naming and shaming multinationals they think should pay more tax has failed, a Multinational Taxation Tzar doing the same will succeed?

I don't know what the solution to international tax mobility is, but I do know it's not another politician - that idea has been tested to destruction over the past hundred years.

The problem with multinational tax avoidance is simple - people and businesses don't have to pay tax they don't owe. Now, if you want a world in which you do have to pay tax you don't owe, I think Corbyn might well be your man.

davidwood123

I'm surprised Labour and lib Dem supporters seem to be against it.

Isn't that what they want....the ones with more money to pay more?

The ones with no assets still won't be expected to pay

Pa_Ja

davidwood123 wrote: »

I'm surprised Labour and lib Dem supporters seem to be against it.

Isn't that what they want....the ones with more money to pay more?

The ones with no assets still won't be expected to pay

No-one (Or very few) wants a system whereby they're forced to sell their property.
I would say though that a large portion of society would like to see large companies pay a fair amount of corporation tax and the wealthy elite also.

surveyqueenuk

Mojisola wrote: »

It's a shame she didn't make him a joint owner at the time.

It could still be worth it - the house shouldn't be included in any financial assessment because of his age, being her live-in carer and his own disabilities but it will make things easier when she passes if the house is automatically his.

Getting back to the OPs initial questions, this seems to be a solution worth considering. My PILs have recently gifted their house to their two sons to prevent it being sold.

Primrose

Malthusian wrote: »

................

Over the course of the 50 years in which they are saving up against this possibility, they could invest their dementia-insurance-fund in an asset which could keep pace and maybe beat inflation over the long term. Like, dare I suggest it, a house.

A HOUSE, the value of which the powers that be will then use to pay for your care, if you ever need it. Not saying this is right or wrong, but it seems that all funding roads for this issue go round in circles until they end up eventually in the same place.