inheritance tax annoucement

monkeyspanner

Ed thanks for reminding me, I must look at the annuity route as an alternative funding option. I have to say your comment about relatives being greedy is a bit harsh.

Some relatives in this situation are only reacting to the concerns of their elderly relative as many older people have put a considerable effort into saving and paying for their homes and become preoccupied with leaving something to their children. It is, after all, the last thing they believe they can do for their children. Their focus is on what little control they have left.

Cradle to grave care has never been the real situation and people have always paid for their care. In fact all residents of care homes contribute to the cost of their care to some extent as even those who are 'paid for by the council' have the majority of their income and attendance allowance taken to pay fo part of the care. Ok so it's from one state purse to another but it is still their money.

Apologies to the OP and any other reader who thought this thread was still about IHT changes.

localhero

I write Wills. When I go and see my clients I ask them what their priorities are. If they say they want to minimise IHT I tell them how best to achieve it. If they want to protect the home from care fees ditto. If they want to disinherit one of their kids ditto.

For single/widowed people the first 2 are a lot harder and cannot always be achieved.

Sure I tell them of the practical consequences, but it's never my place to consider the morals - and I think it's the same in this forum.

In the same way as the divorce lawyer won't say to the wife "ooh do you think you should have half of his estate and custody of the kids after you've committed adultery" Of course not.

This is a website about saving money and the same applies here surely.

royeee

Have I understood rightly that for married couple, first one die and £300k allowance handed to the other half, then other half die and the benefactors (combined) have an allowance of £600k before paying any IHT?

chesky369

I certainly seem to have put the cat amongst the pigeons by my innocent request for information. The media has been full of explanations as to how this new legislation will affect people, but the one thing that I’ve never seen mentioned has been what happens with people who live separately but are technically still married. I rather thought that if there were others in this situation they might appreciate things being clarified in this area.

I didn’t realize it would be a can of worms I’d opened up re the whole issue of IHT. I also didn’t realize I would be expected to justify the way I have chosen to live my life which I find rather offensive, nor to have to defend this position to one poster in particular who, simply because she would not have behaved in the same manner, seems to think she can be free to be personally insulting – even though she totally failed to understand the nature of my original query.

I do not appreciate being compared to her husband’s ex-wife and I find her implication that I have not ‘moved on’ in my life truly laughable. I really don’t care that she would have been divorced herself had she been in my position – it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

I did not go into the rights and wrongs of IHT in my original request, I simply wanted to know how it might affect me.

chesky369

Only just realised that I didn't actually start this thread myself. My mind is obviously going - sad! So forget what I said about the rights and wrongs of IHT (but not the rest).

dollywops

EdInvestor wrote: »

I think you should look at how much it actually costs to pay for care before engaging in moral blackmail.Very few people need nursing care and the Government already contributes nearly a third of the average cost for those that are too well off or not sick enough to get public funding.

Am I missing something here. My 76 year old mother-in-law has been in a nursing home for almost 2 years now, suffering from progressive supranulcear palsy, and at a cost, to my father-in-law, of £1,000 per week. The Government makes no contribution to her care whatsoever.

It could and should do more, especially for dementia victims -and for carers in general.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

EdInvestor

dollywops wrote: »

EdInvestor wrote: »

Am I missing something here. My 76 year old mother-in-law has been in a nursing home for almost 2 years now, suffering from progressive supranulcear palsy, and at a cost, to my father-in-law, of £1,000 per week. The Government makes no contribution to her care whatsoever.

If she is receiving nursing care she should be receiving a payment from the NHS at one of three rates, depending on how much nursing she needs.This payment will become a flat rate payment of 101 pounds a week shortly. She should also be receiving attendance allowance, which is paid at around 47 or 64 pounds a week (approx) depending on whether she needs care only during the day, or 24/7. Niether of these payments is means-tested.

At some point she may become ill enough to qualify for NHS "Continuing Care", where all fees will be paid.However it sounds as though you are using a fairly expensive nursing home, so whether or not the NHS would pay the full fees if she eventually qualifies, who knows - they might require a topup from the family.You would however still make a big saving, so be sure to request a review if MiL's condition deteriorates.

More info about funding care costs.

https://www.hsbcpensions.co.uk/nhfa/pdfs/is6.pdf

You may like to look at the "immediate needs care annuity" which provides a guaranteed tax free lifetime income and is often excellent value for money as well as providing peace of mind.

Biggles

dollywops wrote: »

Am I missing something here. My 76 year old mother-in-law has been in a nursing home for almost 2 years now, suffering from progressive supranulcear palsy, and at a cost, to my father-in-law, of £1,000 per week. The Government makes no contribution to her care whatsoever.

Bear in mind that the Registered Nursing Care Contribution referred to by Ed won't have been paid to your father-in-law direct but paid to the care home and will have been netted off of their bill to him, though they would normally have kept him advised of the amount (£40, £87 or £139 till 30 Sep and changed to £101 pw week on 1 Oct).