Can you imagine the destruction in the UK if the property market crashed

lisyloo

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

Lots of elderly people are tenants rather than home owners. Not everyone needs to go into a care home. Look at all the elderly folk in supported care places etc.

No, I haven't made any specific plans because I have no idea what the situation will be like by that time. Anything could change in this country.

But in general terms, I would prefer to be renting (with a secure tenancy) in old age - rather than struggling to maintain a house I own, but with no money to spend. What would be the point in that?

Maybe I will sell my home to a relative and retain a life tenancy? Who knows? The rules and government will constantly change.

Mostly poorer people are tenants in their retirement.
Most people who are comfortable in retirement have nice homes.

How do you get a secure tenancy? Serious question.

Most people who planned sensibly would not own a home they could not maintain (but some maintenance as demonstrated by Phil is totally discretionary).
I agree there it’s pointless struggling to own a home you can’t keep up.

Most sensible people won’t retire until their pension pot is big enough or could decide to downsiZe to somewhere cheaper once they don’t have the requirement of commuting to a job, but agree it’s bonkers to live beyond your means and sensible to cut your cloth to suit.
In general owning is going to help with paying maintenance as your not paying mortgage/rent.

If you sold your home to a relative to avoid care fees then that transaction could be rolled back (see deliberate deprivation of assets).

But if you want to rent in old age feel free.
I prefer no rent/mortgage for the next 45 years and won’t worry about unicorn scenarios but I am aware rules/taxation can change and will keep informed of auch matters.

James_Green_1982

Exodi wrote: »

I'm having trouble fathoming the difficulty you're having grasping this (especially having explained it yourself)? If you're not paying for your care, your care will have to be paid through tax; which as you've brilliantly explained above, is paid by the public. I'm not really sure what else to say, you're confusion has confused me?



Right, ok. I think even you know you're spouting nonsense.

People don't usually go straight into a care home. They usually require some home care first. Add to that the general costs of living in retirement and probable future pension changes (for the worse). You can therefore assume that the full value of someone's house will not all be going towards the care home fees. It will have been eaten away long before that.

The whole ''taxpayer'' argument doesn't really make sense because some people will retire owning no house at all and some may own 100 houses etc.

Exodi

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

The whole ''taxpayer'' argument doesn't really make sense because some people will retire owning no house at all and some may own 100 houses etc.

With the key difference being the majority of these people wouldn't have deliberately put themselves in a situation where they don't own a home to claim public funding.

You have no issue paying tax to cover unemployment benefit, but if I was to tell you I planned on being unemployed for the rest of my life because working is effort and I'd prefer to play games everyday, would you not express an objection that you are, to an extent, subsidising my new choice?

I don't want to stay on this point, it's clear we're at opposite ends. I personally think it's a s**t thing to do but you see it as a smart thing to do so let's leave it there because I doubt we'll agree.

lisyloo

James_Green_1982 wrote: »

People don't usually go straight into a care home. They usually require some home care first. Add to that the general costs of living in retirement and probable future pension changes (for the worse). You can therefore assume that the full value of someone's house will not all be going towards the care home fees. It will have been eaten away long before that.

The whole ''taxpayer'' argument doesn't really make sense because some people will retire owning no house at all and some may own 100 houses etc.

The first part is definitely not true (and I’ve seen the bills assesements twice so I know how this works).
You seem to be making stuff up about areas you know nothing about !!

If someone is living in their home it’s disregarded from care at home calculations, so the value of their property won’t get eaten away.

It will only be use when they AND their spouse (or anyone else that qualified) is no longer living there.

Why are you making stuff up??

lisyloo

Exodi wrote: »

but you see it as a smart thing to do so.

James isn’t smart on this issue and has no idea what he/she is talking about.

Peoples homes are disregarded when they are living in them.
See property disregard.
See deprivation is assets.

I’m not really interested in discussing stuff with someone who’s just making stuff up they don’t anything about.

I don’t claim to be the most intelligent poster here but I do know about the finances around social care and care fees, LPA, COP and I call bluffer who’s just making stuff up.

As an example I’ve just sold a small inexpensive flat and it will last about 4.5 years after 10 months of free care.
It’s highly unlikely my MIL will last another 4.5 years and very few do in care homes, so it’s very unlikely people will run out of money if they own a property when their income is considered as well.

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

The first part is definitely not true (and I’ve seen the bills assesements twice so I know how this works).
You seem to be making stuff up about areas you know nothing about !!

If someone is living in their home it’s disregarded from care at home calculations, so the value of their property won’t get eaten away.

It will only be use when they AND their spouse (or anyone else that qualified) is no longer living there.

Why are you making stuff up??

I'm not making things up. I'm making a general allowance for what may or may not happen in the future. You can't have seen bills from the future that state what I may need to spend my home ''equity'' on.

The rules you mention are in force today. My point is that such rules change and no one can predict their own future circumstances.

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

James isn’t smart on this issue and has no idea what he/she is talking about.

Peoples homes are disregarded when they are living in them.
See property disregard.
See deprivation is assets.

l.

Yes. Present tense. Things change.

Exodi

lisyloo wrote: »

James isn’t smart on this issue and has no idea what he/she is talking about.

Peoples homes are disregarded when they are living in them.
See property disregard.
See deprivation is assets.

I’m not really interested in discussing stuff with someone who’s just making stuff up they don’t anything about.

Whether the council decided they had deliberately deprivated their assets or not (and I'd wager a 70+ year old selling their mortgage free house and proceeding to spunk the proceeds over the next few years would be pretty clear-cut), I'm most niggled by the attitude of "I'll sell my house, go on the mother of all spending sprees, then everyone else can pay for my care!" :mad:

James_Green_1982

lisyloo wrote: »

James isn’t smart on this issue and has no idea what he/she is talking about.

As an example I’ve just sold a small inexpensive flat and it will last about 4.5 years after 10 months of free care.
It’s highly unlikely my MIL will last another 4.5 years and very few do in care homes, so it’s very unlikely people will run out of money if they own a property when their income is considered as well.

And how did the person who lived in the flat feed themselves prior to going into care?
Maybe they had a good pension. But if not, having ''equity'' in a property will not keep you fed or warm.

It's not about how much someone knows, because no one can predict anyone else's future circumstances!

James_Green_1982

Exodi wrote: »

Whether the council decided they had deliberately deprivated their assets or not (and I'd wager a 70+ year old selling their mortgage free house and proceeding to spunk the proceeds over the next few years would be pretty clear-cut), I'm most niggled by the attitude of "I'll sell my house, go on the mother of all spending sprees, then everyone else can pay for my care!" :mad:

Well I was talking about paying for food, heating etc.