Care Home Fees - Hiding Assets Is Widespread

[juvenal]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17147047

Only 16 out of 121 Councils make any check on the assets of people going into taxpayer funded care. Meanwhile the wealthy get Mum's assets out of sight with impunity, so they can inherit later.

What the **** is up with local councils?. Cutting jobs and services, and leaving this source of revenue untapped?

Surrey Council recovered the biggest sum, recouping more than £250,000 since 2009.

What a result in four years!!! Less than the price of one house!!!

And they were the most effective council!

5 Live Investigates Tonight at 9pm.

[MRMX9]

As Leona Helmsley might put it 'We don't pay home care fees - only the little people pay home care fees'. I have a colleague at work whose elderly parents ended up incurring £250,000 in care fees before they died - all they owned was a modest house in south London which just about covered the costs when they died.

The 'squeezed middle' have to cough up as you cannot hide a modest terraced house - probably their only big 'asset'. However if you have millions in cash, shares, investments etc its much more difficult for councils to track it down. Westminster took nearly a decade just to track down Lady Porter's assets - and she owed them £15million!

But of course we cannot levy a mansion tax cos it might it all those destitute widows in £2m houses (you must have been pretty rich to buy a house worth that now in the first place!). Whereas in practice the vast majority paying it would be cash rich - many indeed foreign owners who pay little or no tax at all here.

Not sure what is to be done about it - but Cameron and Osborne won't do anything about it. Home care fees are a bit of pin money to their families.

[JJJ]

Inheritance tax should be 100%, perhaps minus "items of little value in pounds that are of particular sentimental value to family". That'd sort this all right out and create a far better society.

Of course, the people who would have to implement this are those who benefit the most from inheritance, so it's juts a pipe-dream.

[Mrs Bear]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17147047

Only 16 out of 121 Councils make any check on the assets of people going into taxpayer funded care. Meanwhile the wealthy get Mum's assets out of sight with impunity, so they can inherit later.

What the **** is up with local councils?. Cutting jobs and services, and leaving this source of revenue untapped?

Surrey Council recovered the biggest sum, recouping more than £250,000 since 2009.

What a result in four years!!! Less than the price of one house!!!

And they were the most effective council!

5 Live Investigates Tonight at 9pm.

I'm sure this does happen, but how widespread is it really?

The great advantage of being self-funding is that you choose the care home, and you can choose the time. Social Services will just shove them anywhere that has a room available and will often only do this at all after some real crisis point has been reached, e.g. someone with dementia setting fire to the kitchen or the police have been called more than once because someone is wandering the streets in their nightie at two in the morning.

Not sure how many people who could afford to pay would let things get to crisis point before going down the CH route, just so they can plead relative poverty and let the state fund the bill.

It can be unbelievably stressful, esp. if dementia is involved. Unless you've had to cope with it, you simply can't imagine how hard it can be.

Personally I was very glad we had the 'luxury' of that choice and didn't have to rely on SS in their wisdom deciding when we had reached a point where we simply couldn't cope any more.

And that's twice now, mother and father in law.

[FrozenOut]

Inheritance tax should be 100%, perhaps minus "items of little value in pounds that are of particular sentimental value to family". That'd sort this all right out and create a far better society.

Of course, the people who would have to implement this are those who benefit the most from inheritance, so it's juts a pipe-dream.

And I'm sure you'd hold this view if you had/have parents who were very well off / still alive and very well off

[M'lud]

Inheritance tax should be 100%, perhaps minus "items of little value in pounds that are of particular sentimental value to family". That'd sort this all right out and create a far better society.

Of course, the people who would have to implement this are those who benefit the most from inheritance, so it's juts a pipe-dream.

Hear, hear, because giving more money to the state is a good idea isn't it?

[JJJ]

And I'm sure you'd hold this view if you had/have parents who were very well off / still alive and very well off

One of them is, and has far, far more than I ever expect to have. I have principles. I don't base everything on personal greed. I am as surprised by this as everyone else appears to be.

Hear, hear, because giving more money to the state is a good idea isn't it?

I'd rather that than it go to people who didn't earn it. If you want to give something to someone else, you should have to actually hand it over.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JJJ

[Errol]

Inheritance tax should be 100%, perhaps minus "items of little value in pounds that are of particular sentimental value to family". That'd sort this all right out and create a far better society.

Of course, the people who would have to implement this are those who benefit the most from inheritance, so it's juts a pipe-dream.

Really? What would be the point of working?

[JJJ]

Really? What would be the point of working?

To buy food? To buy clothes? To buy shelter? To buy anything?

[M'lud]

One of them is, and has far, far more than I ever expect to have. I have principles. I don't base everything on personal greed. I am as surprised by this as everyone else appears to be.

I'd rather that than it go to people who didn't earn it. If you want to give something to someone else, you should have to actually hand it over.

Not possible under the 7 years gift rule of the inland revenue. Anyway, why can't i choose the manner in which i give something away, why are you telling me how to give stuff away?

[Errol]

To buy food? To buy clothes? To buy shelter? To buy anything?

Not what motivates most people.

[thombleached]

Not what motivates most people.

I can see injin now chomping at the bit to post a response and leave his 40k legacy in tatters

[erranta]

Inheritance tax should be 100%, perhaps minus "items of little value in pounds that are of particular sentimental value to family". That'd sort this all right out and create a far better society.

Of course, the people who would have to implement this are those who benefit the most from inheritance, so it's juts a pipe-dream.

The Rich off-shore all their land holdings and Stately Mansions in bogus Ltd Companies in Caymans Belize Virgin Islands etc

The fekkers have manipulated the law so they don't even have to declare the owner when they buy and sell huge estates in England Scotland avoiding Hundreds of millions in tax a year (all death duties cos their Mansions are owned off shore in "Trusts" & "they ONLY reside in them" whilst alive)

Ditto Multi-Million Mansions in London

No owner declared = no council tax paid or buying selling CGT taxes etc

Even Royal family members ALL have off-shore tax haven accounts

[JJJ]

Not what motivates most people.

Really? Freaky stuff. The only reason I go to work is to be able to buy things. If I had everything I wanted for free, I'd be unemployed forever.

Anyway, why can't i choose the manner in which i give something away, why are you telling me how to give stuff away?

Society runs on rules. Some rules we'll like, some we won't. I say we should be able to give away whatever we like to whomever we like when we're alive; when we're dead, we're not giving anything away. We're dead; anything we owned when we died now has no owner. The only question is what to do with all the stuff we used to own.

[interestrateripoff]

Not possible under the 7 years gift rule of the inland revenue. Anyway, why can't i choose the manner in which i give something away, why are you telling me how to give stuff away?

Yep you need to play the rich at their own game and sign away the asset, then the house cannot be sold.

The proles have to try and hide assets like the rich.

[M'lud]

Society runs on rules. Some rules we'll like, some we won't. I say we should be able to give away whatever we like to whomever we like when we're alive; when we're dead, we're not giving anything away. We're dead; anything we owned when we died now has no owner. The only question is what to do with all the stuff we used to own.

Sure, so why haven't you addressed the hmrc 7 year rule I mentioned - it is precisely to stop people avoiding inheritance tax.

Let's face it, inheritance tax is just a way for the government to get it's grubby hands on your money. A relative, who has paid tax all their working life and not been a burden on the state (council housing etc) decides that they want you to have their property - what is the justification for the government imposing a tax on something that has already been paid for.

And please don't counter with the mega rich who don't pay iht anyway - it starts at $325,000

[JJJ]

Sure, so why haven't you addressed the hmrc 7 year rule I mentioned - it is precisely to stop people avoiding inheritance tax.

Sorry. How about treating it the same as any other kind of unearned income?

A relative, who has paid tax all their working life and not been a burden on the state (council housing etc) decides that they want you to have their property - what is the justification for the government imposing a tax on something that has already been paid for.

If they want you to have it, that's great. Hand it over right now. Now. Giving something to someone else should mean that the giver actually has less.

what is the justification for the government imposing a tax on something that has already been paid for.

That people should benefit from their own efforts rather than the efforts of others. Granted, applying it absolutely would be unworkable (the unemployed starving to death in the streets etc) but as a principle to build on it seems sound.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JJJ

[M'lud]

That people should benefit from their own efforts rather than the efforts of others. Granted, applying it absolutely would be unworkable (the unemployed starving to death in the streets etc) but as a principle to build on it seems sound.

Now I've hear it all. So taxation is an incentive to work

You obviously think taxation is a good thing - I do not

[FrozenOut]

One of them is, and has far, far more than I ever expect to have. I have principles. I don't base everything on personal greed. I am as surprised by this as everyone else appears to be.

I'd rather that than it go to people who didn't earn it. If you want to give something to someone else, you should have to actually hand it over.

In that case, I'll come with you when the time comes to see you sign the lot over to charity.

[JJJ]

In that case, I'll come with you when the time comes to see you sign the lot over to charity.

It's as if you skipped entirely the post when you draw a strawman argument and jumped right to the end. I think that if I want to give something to someone, I should be able to. How the hell did you get from there to "I'm going to donate all I own to charity tomorrow"?

So taxation is an incentive to work

You as well? If you club together, maybe you can get a discount on the straw.

[M'lud]

You as well? If you club together, maybe you can get a discount on the straw.

How is my reply a strawman. You asserted that taxation of inheritance would encourage people to benefit from their own efforts rather than others¨

I simply countered this by saying that taxation is not a good incentive

[JJJ]

How is my reply a strawman. You asserted that taxation of inheritance would encourage people to benefit from their own efforts rather than others¨

I simply countered this by saying that taxation is not a good incentive

Situation one. Someone inherits 100 million pounds. They benefit from someone else's effort and do no work.

Situation two. That same person inherits nothing. They do not benefit at all. They have a lot less money. Having less money is an incentive to work.

The incentive is not taxation. The person does not think "Crikey, tax! I'll do some work." The incentive is not having enough money to satisfy their desires.

As it is, I couldn't care less if someone felt the need to work or not. That's not at all what my argument is.

Edited February 26, 2012 by JJJ

[M'lud]

Situation one. Someone inherits 100 million pounds. They benefit from someone else's effort and do no work.

Situation two. That same person inherits nothing. They do not benefit at all. They have a lot less money. Having less money is an incentive to work.

The incentive is not taxation. The person does not think "Crikey, tax! I'll do some work." The incentive is not having enough money to satisfy their desires.

The person thinks ¨the government has taken my parents hard work to make my life better, sod it Iḿ not doing the same, please give me a council house¨

Making people poor is a really sh!t policy

[JJJ]

Making people poor is a really sh!t policy

They don't need the money any more - they're dead.

[bmf]

Yep you need to play the rich at their own game and sign away the asset, then the house cannot be sold.

The proles have to try and hide assets like the rich.

I'm one step ahead of them. I don't have a house to pass on! Let's see them get their hands on that!