Tuesday, May 13, 2008
What Kindness
Telegraph.co.uk: Gordon Brown: Elderly 'will not have to sell their houses to fund care'
Gordon Brown has proposed an "age insurance" scheme, which he says will safeguard care of the elderly.
Few details were disclosed but it is thought the plan involves compulsory payments into a pot throughout an individual's working life.
Enforced savings would be spent on care in the individual's old age or infirmity.
Posted by plato @ 01:52 PM (893 views) Add Comment
29 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
1. Jackas said...
That's a great idea. Insurance on a National scale to pay for old age!
National....Insurance, erm........has this been done before?
2. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
3. jonb said...
And remind me. What was National Insurance supposed to cover?
4. cornishman said...
"Few details were disclosed but it is thought the plan involves compulsory payments into a pot throughout an individual's working life.
Enforced savings would be spent on care in the individual's old age or infirmity."
What? A sort of 'National Insurance' scheme. There's a novel idea.
5. cornishman said...
snap
6. Landedgentry said...
With the end of cheap oil and food and credit forever, rising council taxes, utility bills etc. theres even less for mortgage payments then.
7. Peter Anton said...
Meanwhile the thrifty will continue to have to sell their homes to cover care costs, while those with nothing will get the State to pay.
And in Scotland nobody will have to sell their homes. One rule for the Scots, another for the English.
8. jack c said...
Perhaps selling the family home (generally largest family asset) in the future might not raise anywhere near the cash it does at present ?and thus the long term care costs would pass to the State more quickly.
I can see fun and games ahead if this is launched in conjuction with the proposed National Pension Scheme.
9. mrmickey said...
Another tax, good thinking Gordo. I wonder how many times this "pot" will get raided to bail out failing banks.
10. Sneaker said...
Typo corrected
Gordon Brown: Elderly 'will not have to sell their houses to fund care SO WE CAN COLLECT INHERITANCE TAX ON THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE'
11. Panjang said...
Actually they have a similar scheme here in Singapore and it works well. The savings are in your name so it is not a tax. You can withdraw them to pay for your care in old age. However here you can leave unused savings to your children in your will. If they follow the Singapore example it might not be such a bad thing, since so many people seem incapable of saving unless it's forced upon them
12. confused76 said...
"the plan involves compulsory payments into a pot throughout an individual's working life. Enforced savings would be spent on care in the individual's old age or infirmity"... you mean a pension?
13. hpwatcher said...
get rid of brown get rid of the excessive taxing.
14. jack c said...
Care home fee hike lifts profits
May 13 2008 Evening Gazette
DARLINGTON-BASED Southern Cross Healthcare, the UK’s biggest care home group with more than 730 homes nationwide, has pushed up fees on more than 85% of its beds this year by a forecasting beating 5%. The move helped boost profits and sent the group’s share price up 6%. Underlying weekly fees, which strip out the impact of acquisitions and new care homes, rose 6% to £515 in the six months to March 30. The company admitted the increase was ahead of expectations. News of the fee increases came as Prime Minister Gordon Brown pledged fundamental reform to social care of the elderly and disabled amid Government warnings that the system is facing a £6bn funding gap within 20 years. Local authority care accounts for the bulk of Southern Cross’s income. The group, which is able to negotiate fee increases every October and April, announced interim revenues up 28% to £431.1m and underlying earnings up 41% to £30.8m. But the traditionally weaker first half, which does not benefit from the yearly round of fee increases, saw pre-tax losses widen to £8.6m from £600,000 the previous year. Southern Cross said the latest charge increases will help improve margins in the second half. Bill Colvin, chief executive of Southern Cross, said: “Fee increases have been agreed ahead of our expectations, landlords continue to show interest in financing our properties and costs remain under control.” The group said it had kept tight control of staffing costs - its most significant cost - thanks to the influx of European workers. The group, which employs more than 40,000 people, has also fixed food and energy costs in advance to help protect itself from the volatility in gas and electricity bills and the soaring cost of food. Southern Cross said that underlying occupancy rates had dipped from 91.1% to 90.4% over the six months, reflecting a large number of new home openings and the impact of last winter’s “norovirus” stomach bug. The winter is traditionally a lower occupancy period as the number of deaths increase in the cold months of the year. Southern Cross said it had continued its strategy of growing by acquisition, adding 14% more beds, to boost its total portfolio to more than 37,000 at the end of March.
In the wake of results yesterday, shares rose a further 21.5p to 383p.
15. crash n burn said...
Keeping the family home will mean more inheritance tax - hmmm yummy
16. Buctootim said...
Who should pay I wonder? Should it be:
1. The elderly person in need of help who occupies a £300,000 house they want to pass onto their children
2. The ordinary tax payer, many of whom are much younger and wont ever be fortunate to own a £300,000 house.
You cant have it both ways guys - lower taxes and more services to an ever aging population.
17. plato said...
Nice find --------- jack c
18. jack c said...
@9. crash n burn said...Keeping the family home will mean more inheritance tax - hmmm yummy
IHT is a voluntary Tax - any good financial planner will offer genuine and legitimate solutions to this problem (check out George Harrison's family situation prior to death with the use of suitable IOM trusts - wink wink)
19. Capialist Piglet said...
Didn't Frank Field suggest a compulsory pension and care scheme 10 years ago, and was then sacked for it?
20. last_days_of_disco said...
The socialist machine is a non-productive thing which consumes all life. Its a black hole. Wait, black holes at least give off pure energy as gamma rays. ok, bad example...
21. crash n burn said...
@11 jack c... I am pretty sure, but always prepared to be corrected, that these new trusts are now subject to different taxation laws. I agree this used to be the case a number of years ago.
22. jack c said...
@13. crash n burn said...I am pretty sure, but always prepared to be corrected, that these new trusts are now subject to different taxation laws. I agree this used to be the case a number of years ago.
You are correct - Crash G & Co meddled with the trust regime and made it complicated beyond the average persons comprehension and less attractive, however after considering any entry, periodic and exit charges, trusts still form an essential part of protecting someones estate and potentially avoiding 40% IHT. In addition there is a way in which the family home can effectively be "ring fenced" from long term care costs - typically it costs around £1500 to set up the trust but IMO it's well worth it.
23. crash n burn said...
@ jack c... Interesting - well, when I am in a position whereby my net wealth means I am getting close to the IHT liability threshold, then I will most definately look at this issue in greater depth... First though I must get a house and become more financially established.
24. titaniccaptain said...
What a load of Sh#t..................this country just gave 50 billion to the banks and took on northern rock which is going to cost.....well lets not go there......... and we are worrying about a possible 6 billion shortfall??????????????????????????????????????? Now I am angry.........why should the old give up their homes? they have payed into the system in N.I. and we have a duty to look after our old anyone who says different can F##k off
25. denzil said...
I'm becoming more and more convinced that Gordon Brown has been planted by the Conservative Party to ensure their victory in the next election. If he isn't a Conservative Party plant then he is plain and simply scum. There is a saying that, "cream always rises to the top". There is also a saying that "shit floats". Gordon Brown is the latter.
26. denzil said...
buctootim said:
>>Who should pay I wonder? Should it be:
>>1. The elderly person in need of help who occupies a £300,000 house they want to pass onto their children
>>2. The ordinary tax payer, many of whom are much younger and wont ever be fortunate to own a £300,000 house.
>>You cant have it both ways guys - lower taxes and more services to an ever aging population.
It's probably passed you by but the tax burden imposed by this government has increased massively under this Labour government and is now higher than the previous peak which was back in the 1970's, also under a Labour government.
Please explain where your "lower taxes" are coming from. I'm awaiting with bated breath.
27. jack c said...
@23. crash n burn - the IHT threshold for 2008/2009 is £312k and you could effectively double this up if married or have a civil partner. In the meantime good luck with your quest in getting a house and becoming more financially established.
28. plato said...
24. titaniccaptain
Excellent!!! Put into context and delivered with great feeling.
29. it_is_going_with_a_bang said...
What a joke.
It's like paying the mob a fee so you won't get hit. A protection racket in all but name lol