Protecting pensions from politicians - or preparing for a Labour coalition

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

Neither have I any objections to it, as I have posted elsewhere. But it is a tax on your wealth and that includes your savings.

My concern on the "Dementia Tax" is twofold. Firstly the upper cap will be set to protect her core supporters in their £1m+ houses. Second, it would be fairer to spread the burden across everyone rather than levy the costs on those unlucky to have a degenerative condition rather than those who have short illnesses. A broader but smaller tax on estates would be far more re-distributive. The proposal will need seedcorn funding from taxation so I think it is right that the money is spent with a more strategic approach than on an individual basis.

But I agree its better that we tax death to pay for social care and we should pay for our care.

I mostly agree although the very rich are pretty good at finding ways to avoid death taxes too (wanna buy a farm anyone?) so perhaps something slightly more subtle is needed. Also I think if the benefit is universally available all should get the 'basic level' and those who can afford to and choose to being able to top up their provision rather than having to opt out entirely and pay it all.

Teaandscones

Quote:
The so called "Dementia tax" levied on people who need care at home for many years and paid for after their death (which affects all sorts of other degenerative conditions) is also a tax on your savings?
The 'Dementia ' Tax is paying for your own care from your own resources. I have no objection to that (although I'd rather be in a position where it wasn't necessary). You will still be able to pass on £100k.

What happens to the situation of a 65 year old daughter (or son) who has been caring for their 90 year old mother for 10 years with the help of carers. After the mother has died, will the daughter be made homeless? or will she be allowed to stay in the home but left with an increasing debt racking up interest (which will soon whittle away the 100k) unable to move, whilst the Local Authority may not get payment for its costs for 30 years.

justme111

These are particular cases which should be dealt with by relevant legislation. If the house is to be sold then that 65 yo if he/she is vulnerable( no means on their own) would become homeless and should be accommodated by local authority appropriately. If they have means to rent/buy privately (with 100 000 left from the house it would be possible) they do so.

zagfles

Teaandscones wrote: »

Quote:
The so called "Dementia tax" levied on people who need care at home for many years and paid for after their death (which affects all sorts of other degenerative conditions) is also a tax on your savings?
The 'Dementia ' Tax is paying for your own care from your own resources. I have no objection to that (although I'd rather be in a position where it wasn't necessary). You will still be able to pass on £100k.

What happens to the situation of a 65 year old daughter (or son) who has been caring for their 90 year old mother for 10 years with the help of carers. After the mother has died, will the daughter be made homeless? or will she be allowed to stay in the home but left with an increasing debt racking up interest (which will soon whittle away the 100k) unable to move, whilst the Local Authority may not get payment for its costs for 30 years.

Well the situation now is if the home was owned by the mother then it would pass according to her will (or intestacy rules), it doesn't automatically go to the daughter just because she's been living in it for the last 10 years! You don't get automatic payment of a house for being your parents carer!

Assuming the daughter inherits - even with this so called "dementia tax" she'd be far better off than someone who cared for their mother who was living in rented accomodation rather than in a property she owned.

Malthusian

caring for their 90 year old mother for 10 years

It's exceptionally rare for an elderly person to be so far gone they need someone to spend every waking hour looking after them (i.e. their 55 year old daughter has to give up her career) and survive in that state for 10 years. 1-2 years at most would be more typical. Hard cases make bad law.

As Justme says, at worst the daughter will have the usual state benefits plus one hundred thousand quid to find new accommodation. Or she can just move back into her old house. If she expected to own her own home, she should already have had one when she was 55, before she gave up work to look after her mother. If she was gambling everything on inheriting her mother's, then that's a crazy way to live your life. As has already been said, her mother could have left it to the cats' home and not even left her with the £100,000.

And I do not agree with a certain political faction that children should sacrifice their lives on the altar of their parents. If, in many years' time, any of my children try to leave their jobs and impoverish themselves so they can devote their lives to wiping my !!!!, it will be my parental duty to take out restraining orders.

thepurplepixie

I'm not clear on how it will work if you own a house as a joint tenant. I thought the point of a joint tenancy, or one point at least, was that on death of one their share automatically passes to the other so how will the council be able to force you to sell a house that is now 100% yours to repay the care costs. Will joint ownership change or does the other owner, probably the spouse/partner, have to agree to pay before care is provided. Or don't we know yet?

thepurplepixie

justme111 wrote: »

Or people may chose to live unwashed if they do not want to pay for care.

At some point with dementia, unless you die of something else first, you won't have capacity to make that decision. So what happens then?

justme111

Again, provisions are made for it in legislation - they would have left POA or there would be court of protection or whatever is its name.

atush

We dont know yet.

And given most people never need care, I dont see a problem. Our house and pensions are worth a shedload, but given I have put all 3 of mine thru uni with no debt, and given a small cash gift (under the annual gift allowance as a grad gift) they dont need to inherit a huge amount. They could split the 100K.

Although I am sure they will get something, as we will have enough to pay for carers in home for a good long time if needed. We will use our travel/leisure/car budget to help pay for a start. AS we wont be needing it.

Part of financial planning for your last 30-40 years should include a plan to pay for some sort of care.

thepurplepixie

I'm not concerned for my family, my pension is enough to pay for care so I know I can pass on the house. They have also had help with deposits, uni, first car etc. I think it will be more a case of passing on to grandchildren than children.