Extend the uncertainty?

The-Joker

lisyloo wrote: »

No that’s incorrect.
If you are still living in your home whilst receiving care it’s value is disregarded.
You only need to pay if your income is above approx £300 per week (I did the applications twice and still have the paperwork if more detail required).

Yes people should sell empty properties (once no longer required) and not hoard them for inheritance and expect to be paid for by someone else. I would rather forego an inheritance than see young taxpayers foot the bill (it’s odd how the least selfish people I know are not parents).

This is off-topic.
The point I was raising was that a recent sale (completed in feb) was unaffected by brexit uncertianty. There was a chain of 4 parties (3 properties) so some people just getting on with their lives and those HAVING to sell not necessarily badly affected (although as always depends on the quality and condition of the property).

If the rush wasn’t feb then I’m not quite sure when It’s meant to be.

As the population ages there will be a great deal more need for private health care.

If you are talking about government funded health care vitits then they will not be enough for most elderly people. Just as government funded care hoes will not be as good as selling the family home to pay for better care homes.

Arklight

The-Joker wrote: »

As the population ages there will be a great deal more need for private health care.

If you are talking about government funded health care vitits then they will not be enough for most elderly people. Just as government funded care hoes will not be as good as selling the family home to pay for better care homes.

There will be a greater need for care. As most old people only ever vote Tory they've got exactly what they voted for. I.e. taking a wrecking ball to state provision, leaving them with care they have to pay for out of pocket at a vastly higher price than used to be offered by the local health authority authored by a government that has an ideological hatred of vulnerable people.

Buy the Yin of all that house price wealth everyone was so excited about was always going to have it's Yang.

Not sure about about the hoes.

lisyloo

The-Joker wrote: »

As the population ages there will be a great deal more need for private health care.

If you are talking about government funded health care vitits then they will not be enough for most elderly people. Just as government funded care hoes will not be as good as selling the family home to pay for better care homes.

Agreed there will be an increasing need for care.
Care at home is sufficient for some and preffered both by individuals and local authorities
There is a limit yes - it’s 4x 1 hour visits per day.
You are incorrect to say for MOST. It’s a minority that end up in residential/nursing care.

The family home can only be sold when no one is living in it, so if a spouse still lives there it cannot be sold.
You are talking about it as if it is a choice and mostly it’s not a choice. Either someone lives there when it can’t be sold or it’s empty and it MUST be sold.

Actually my MIL was LA funded until her husband died and then She became a private payer. The care is EXACTLY the same (but higher cost as there is a cross subsidy in play).

This is an area I do know something about and it’s amazing the amount of stuff that people make up about something they don’t know about. Something to bear in mind when relying on any info.

The-Joker

lisyloo wrote: »

Agreed there will be an increasing need for care.
Care at home is sufficient for some and preffered both by individuals and local authorities
There is a limit yes - it’s 4x 1 hour visits per day.
You are incorrect to say for MOST. It’s a minority that end up in residential/nursing care.

The family home can only be sold when no one is living in it, so if a spouse still lives there it cannot be sold.
You are talking about it as if it is a choice and mostly it’s not a choice. Either someone lives there when it can’t be sold or it’s empty and it MUST be sold.

Actually my MIL was LA funded until her husband died and then She became a private payer. The care is EXACTLY the same (but higher cost as there is a cross subsidy in play).

This is an area I do know something about and it’s amazing the amount of stuff that people make up about something they don’t know about. Something to bear in mind when relying on any info.

Cash strapped governments need to make savings and this is one of the first areas.

As useual they will need to take equity from properties in the future as things look more bleak to pay for an aging population

lisyloo

The-Joker wrote: »

Cash strapped governments need to make savings and this is one of the first areas.

As useual they will need to take equity from properties in the future as things look more bleak to pay for an aging population

That’s complete speculation, but I have no issue with a deferred charge.
People should pay for themselves rather than hoard wealth and expect someone else to pay. There is no magic money tree so the tax payers otherwise paying will be younger people who don’t have hoarded wealth which makes it less fair.

FWIW - my views are the opposite of what is in my personal interest.

There were some proposals a few years ago that never got through so policitically it is not one of the first areas as it’s very difficult politically and as we know politics in this country is based on short term aims/popularity.

Actually it’s a local authority problem and only indirectly a government problem.

It doesn’t have a lot to do with brexit uncertianty except that people will still continue to sell homes regardless of the state of the market (the local authorities insist on it).

LHW99

People should pay for themselves rather than hoard wealth and expect someone else to pay. There is no magic money tree so the tax payers otherwise paying will be younger people who don’t have hoarded wealth which makes it less fair.

I agree, although it is a pity there is not some way of insurers offering a suitable product for those who would prefer to pay a bit throughout a period of time, rather than worry even when they do self-pay that the funds will run out, and they will be moved somewhere they don't want with no advocate to stand up for them

Seabee42

Half the population does not own any property at all? How should they pay?

lisyloo

LHW99 wrote: »

I agree, although it is a pity there is not some way of insurers offering a suitable product for those who would prefer to pay a bit throughout a period of time, rather than worry even when they do self-pay that the funds will run out, and they will be moved somewhere they don't want with no advocate to stand up for them

That type of insurance does not seem to be available.

Annuities are available and something I’ve looked at recently.
The problem we found is that whilst you can build in an annual increase there isn’t a way of guaranteeing that fee increases will be covered. So a big objection from us is that we could buy one and she could still run out of money.
For most people with property it’s unlikely they’ll run out as average stay is about 26 months, but there are a few outliers so it’s a worry.

People need to get advocates in place beforehand ideally with a lasting power of attorney before they lose mental capacity. My MIL refused unfortunately.
I’ve recently done court of protection which is expensive, slow and onerous, so ironically she’s has to pay more because if her own obstinacy.

AG47

Seabee42 wrote: »

Half the population does not own any property at all? How should they pay?

They will live in the poor quality over crosses nursing homes

lisyloo

Seabee42 wrote: »

Half the population does not own any property at all? How should they pay?

They pay from their income (they will be entitled to min income currently £160 per week) and any savings/investments they have over certain thresholds. They will be left with £25 per week to spend on clothes and person items, so even the poorest will be paying £135 per week.

There is an increasing likelihood they will end up somewhere not very nice and possibly overmydeadbody territory depending on the strength of the advocates they have.

We found somewhere caring and decent for my MIL but we had strong advocacy and had to fight hard with LA pressurising family to contribute at every turn.
We still have to fight for her to get what she needs regarding food/hygiene as they are pretty hard pressed so it’s not perfect.

We visited some awful homes, with urine/faeces on display, dressing hanging off, cold, staff not interested and this is where people without both money and good advocacy will end up.

People who want to protect their property and get state care for free are rather overrlookigng the fact that it’s unlikely to be like a nice hotel.