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!
Protecting pensions from politicians - or preparing for a Labour coalition
Comments
-
seven-day-weekend wrote: »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.
Has this been made clear? Is the plan that someone will be expected to enter into a financial arrangement like equity release to pay for the care? Or will the state be expected to pay for the care by effectively advancing the money to them before collecting from the estate (with or with or without interest)? Genuine question since that would involve additional public expenditure.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Well regardless of this policy, if the estate is split several ways then it's unlikely the carer will be able to remain in the house unless they have sufficient assets to buy the others out. In which case they'll also have sufficient assets not to need their LA's help with housing.Fair enough but the proposal is half baked and there are lots of these special cases.
The scenario above assumed that the 65yo is the sole inheritor of the property. It may be that the £100K is split among many others or left to someone else. Also it creates an obligation on the LA to house someone.0 -
Crystal clear in the manifesto - although widely misreported. Page 65:Has this been made clear? Is the plan that someone will be expected to enter into a financial arrangement like equity release to pay for the care? Or will the state be expected to pay for the care by effectively advancing the money to them before collecting from the estate (with or with or without interest)? Genuine question since that would involve additional public expenditure.
https://www.conservatives.com/manifestoThird, we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those receiving care at home, so no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care.0 -
Teaandscones wrote: »What a cruel way to treat carers who save the country £billions. The public seem to have picked up on this, which is why the Conservatives poll lead has fallen back despite having a hard left opposition.
Sorry I am not sure what exactly you consider cruel. Do you mean that in your opinion everybody who partially cared for someone at the time of the death of that someone is entitled to continue living in deceased person's house?The word "dilemma" comes from Greek where "di" means two and "lemma" means premise. Refers usually to difficult choice between two undesirable options.
Often people seem to use this word mistakenly where "quandary" would fit better.0 -
Teaandscones wrote: »What a cruel way to treat carers who save the country £billions.
Not cruel, just equitable. If someone looks after their elderly mother who lives in rented accomodation, should the taxpayer buy them a free house once their mother passes away? If not then why is it fine for the child of a renter to be made "homeless" but cruel for the daughter of a homeowner? (For a very loose definition of "homeless" - needing to find somewhere else to live does not make you homeless.)0 -
Can you still "inherit" a council tenancy? I'm sure you used to be able to but maybe it has changed.Malthusian wrote: »Not cruel, just equitable. If someone looks after their elderly mother who lives in rented accomodation, should the taxpayer buy them a free house once their mother passes away? If not then why is it fine for the child of a renter to be made "homeless" but cruel for the daughter of a homeowner? (For a very loose definition of "homeless" - needing to find somewhere else to live does not make you homeless.)0 -
thepurplepixie wrote: »Can you still "inherit" a council tenancy? I'm sure you used to be able to but maybe it has changed.
Yes - https://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_advice/council_housing_association/can_you_inherit_a_council_tenancy0 -
Not so equitable then.0 -
Crystal clear in the manifesto - although widely misreported. Page 65:
https://www.conservatives.com/manifesto
That just says what will happen, not how which was my question.
Say the house is worth £300K and the occupant needs home care for a few years (say £30K) and then spends two years in a nursing home (£100K).
OK they do not have to sell their home. But will the state advance the £130K as an interest free loan and recovered this on the sale of the property? Or will the state add 10% interest to this? Or will the state simply expect you to take out a loan from an insurance company that pays off the care costs as with equity release?
Either it will add to public spending or it will just force people to accept the terms of equity release firms There is nowt in the manifesto about HOW. Either way it could cost more than £130K when interest and profit is added and it may just mean that it is better to sell the house.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
You do understand that now, under current rules which have been in place for decades, that £100k of that £130k cost in your example is already means tested against the value of the house? As that's care home costs. The proposed change is to the at-home care costs, ie £30k of the £130k in your example.That just says what will happen, not how which was my question.
Say the house is worth £300K and the occupant needs home care for a few years (say £30K) and then spends two years in a nursing home (£100K).
OK they do not have to sell their home. But will the state advance the £130K as an interest free loan and recovered this on the sale of the property? Or will the state add 10% interest to this? Or will the state simply expect you to take out a loan from an insurance company that pays off the care costs as with equity release?
Either it will add to public spending or it will just force people to accept the terms of equity release firms There is nowt in the manifesto about HOW. Either way it could cost more than £130K when interest and profit is added and it may just mean that it is better to sell the house.
The manifesto quote above says "we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those receiving care at home". So just look up the current rules for deferred payments if you're really interested rather than just trying to use this as a political football. Here you go:
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/deferred-payment-agreements-for-long-term-care0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards