Brown pledge on care costs

robp

My Mother has been her Mothers carer for the last 20 years, and continues to do so. She wouldn't dream of putting her in a home (which she could, at the tax payers cost).

Unfortunately my Sister also needs a certain amount of care, and Mum was hoping that inheritance would allow my Sister to live a reasonable life once she has passed on.

Our concerns are:-

a) Sister's loser partner might try to take the money (over my dead body..)
b) Government might take some/all of her inheritance, seems a shame that Mum has planned so hard to help her daughter

There can be so many personal circumstances at work in families, it's impossible to generalise. However there needs to be a reason to want to save money to pass on. Many of us see this as a sign of love for our family, wanting to help them. If this isn't provided, we can all just spend what we've earned or perhaps don't bother working at all because the tax payer will bail us out.

No way can GB work out a way to fund all of this....he is loath to raise the Inheritance threshold as it is.

For my money, this is the sign of a government in panic.

benood

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I'd actually extend this to families as well. Do we deserve an inheritance from our parents if we place them into the care of strangers? Why should their money not be used to pay for that care, if we are not prepared to do it?

I imagine that Shopaholic has taken this a bit personally and thus the understandable outburst.

I don't think that your postulation is correct in any case. Surely it is up to a parent where his/her inheiritance goes, they can change their will if they feel aggrieved at being placed into care. The government penalises them for living a frugal life and amassing wealth when others are being "rewarded" for a lifetime of improvidence.

Perhaps children and grandchildren could be forced to contribute/forego benefits when an impecunious geriatric parent goes into care, that would concentrate minds/lose votes!

Dithering_Dad

robp wrote: »

...unfortunately my Sister also needs a certain amount of care, and Mum was hoping that inheritance would allow my Sister to live a reasonable life once she has passed on.

Our concerns are:-

a) Sister's loser partner might try to take the money (over my dead body..)
b) Government might take some/all of her inheritance, seems a shame that Mum has planned so hard to help her daughter.

You could look at setting up a trust fund for your sister, or even a stakeholder pension - this allows anyone to invest upto £3600 a year on their behalf, no questions asked. I read a sales brochure aimed at Grandparents investing on their grandchildren's behalf and it mentioned that any money invested does not form part of the Grandparent's estate and is not subject to IHT.

The benefit of a pensions is that apart from a 25% tax free lump sum, the capital cannot be gotten at so the recipient (or their shady partners) cannot waste it all.

Dithering_Dad

benood wrote: »

I imagine that Shopaholic has taken this a bit personally and thus the understandable outburst.

I don't think that your postulation is correct in any case. Surely it is up to a parent where his/her inheiritance goes, they can change their will if they feel aggrieved at being placed into care. The government penalises them for living a frugal life and amassing wealth when others are being "rewarded" for a lifetime of improvidence.

Perhaps children and grandchildren could be forced to contribute/forego benefits when an impecunious geriatric parent goes into care, that would concentrate minds/lose votes!

I did say "we" in the statement, including myself in the postulation, so I can hardly be blamed if Shopaholic took it personally. The argument for the government penalising people for living a fugal life is also used when discussing pensions - often people who have not made any pension provision end up better off than those who have, due to pensions credits, etc. However, in that case, I'd rather not have to go 'cap in hand' to the government for my retirement money (hence I'm saving like mad into a pension) and by the same token I don't want to go 'cap in hand' to the council for my parents (or my) retirement home provision.

I'd rather all of my parents money went to providing them with a superior 'old folks home' than have them at the mercy of the Local Council while I blow their savings on a trip to Hawaii. They made sure that when I was a child/young adult they gave me the tools to create my own wealth and so I don't need or want any of theirs.

As a final point on this subject, I'd like to suggest the following example. If my Dad has a house in london worth £600k, cash savings amounting to 20k and an investment portfolio of £100k, is it fair for a single mum struggling along on the breadline to be supplementing my Dad's stay in a care home via her (ever increasing) Council Tax payments just so I can get a huge payoff?

Dick_here

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

As a final point on this subject, I'd like to suggest the following example. If my Dad has a house in london worth £600k, cash savings amounting to 20k and an investment portfolio of £100k, is it fair for a single mum struggling along on the breadline to be supplementing my Dad's stay in a care home via her (ever increasing) Council Tax payments just so I can get a huge payoff?

Good point, but there is an equally valid example on the other side. Imagine your dad has the 600k house but not much else financially, and you live with him. Should you be expected to sell your home to fund his care ?

Dithering_Dad

!!!!!!_here wrote: »

Good point, but there is an equally valid example on the other side. Imagine your dad has the 600k house but not much else financially, and you live with him. Should you be expected to sell your home to fund his care ?

Wouldn't it be his home as he paid for it? Isn't his money better spent getting him a better care home than making sure his shiftless son continues to live in luxury? Shouldn't I get off my backside and get my own place?

Anyway, Dad's still more than halfway to being a millionaire - so should the single mum, perhaps living in her mouldy council house be expected to subsidise my old man's care while I live rent free in his mansion?

p.s. I decided that if people are interested in a reasoned debate rather than just vitriolic rhetoric, then I'll continue past my 'final point on the subject'.

Overthetop

greco wrote: »

Empty words. There's going to be a £6bn funding gap and his proposals can only make things worse. Of course, he could always raise taxes to meet the cost. Bet he hasn't thought of that.

I utterly agree

nicko33

With any luck, the obesity time-bomb will bring life expentancy down

Dick_here

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Wouldn't it be his home as he paid for it? Isn't his money better spent getting him a better care home than making sure his shiftless son continues to live in luxury? Shouldn't I get off my backside and get my own place?

But you might be a single mum too, or on disability benefits...

Anyway, Dad's still more than halfway to being a millionaire - so should the single mum, perhaps living in her mouldy council house be expected to subsidise my old man's care while I live rent free in his mansion?

But what if he lived oop North in a place worth £75 or so ?

benood

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I'd rather all of my parents money went to providing them with a superior 'old folks home' than have them at the mercy of the Local Council while I blow their savings on a trip to Hawaii.

Absolutely but I think the people who are really hit are those who have enough money saved to be paying to be cared for in the same home as their improvident contemporaries who are being funded by the council. Luckily your dad isn't in that group, and in any case you'll be looking after him yourself.

Another way of looking at this is to use the same model in education - would you be happy to be paying for your childrens "comprehensive" education while there were a load of people on benefits freeloading - ah that's made me think.:D