Great New Idea For Saving For Old Age

[bogbrush]

A radical new idea is being put forward in a Green paper today which would have people take out something called "insurance" for their care in old age.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8148116.stm

The plan involves paying significant sums of money to insurance companies throughout your life which they won't gamble away in CDS speculation and the like, which will pay for the care that you thought you were paying for in taxes through your life.

The idea would suplement the existing system whereby if you lived a careful life and had a house at old age you get it ripped from you to pay for care, thereby encouraging anyone thinking it through to MEW for fun and squander everything on holidays abroad.

Although likely to be warmly received by the insurance industry, there are some questions being asked about exactly what it is we pay taxes for, apart obviously from EU contributions, US Army truck seconds and recapitalising banks.

Concerns have also been raised that the insurance companies may not retain the funds to pay the care, but the government has countered that this will be underwritted by "new investment" in old age health care by the government. This is likely to be unaffordable in the future, prompting calls for further insurance schemes to be developed to insure against the risk. The final plan is likely to include a provision whereby your entire salary is routed to the insurance scheme, requiring the wage "earner" to claim income tax credits against contributions, just so they remember who it is who pays for their living.

Scotland will not need this system as their old age care is currently paid for by English people.

EDIT: As posted, they have moved to include the word "compulsory". Stinks to Hell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8148116.stm

Edited July 14, 2009 by bogbrush

[bomberbrown]

And there was me foolishly thinking that this was what I have been paying National Insurance all my life was for?

:angry:

[Injin]

Rename the game, play it again.

[@contradevian]

Great retirement plan! For the City guys as usual.

[Bloo Loo]

taxy taxy!

[papag]

Scotland will not need this system as their old age care is currently paid for by English people.

That is those that work

[interestrateripoff]

More money sucked out of the economy, if this for the bankers to invest on our behalf?

Excellent.

[SarahBell]

To help people avoiding having to sell their assets and fund their own care.

Or they are looking at an inheritance tax to cover it...

Which would be great cos now they'll be able to reduce national insurance, right?

Edited July 14, 2009 by SarahBell

[lithanwif]

That is those that work

Oh well done, shame they dont have a smiley for a slow hand clap.

[kara gee]

Here's what I don't get. If old folks have such a problem having to sell their homes to pay for their care, why did they not just give their assets to their children years before and rent the house off the kids on a long-term tennancy?

But old folk are just so old-school when it comes to financial matters, they hate to talk about it and would rather "shut up and put up". Then their house is sold and their kids get nothing in the end. Pointless!

I've been telling my retired mum for years, to sell her big draughty house find somewhere small and cheap and kit it out with the best insulation then spend the rest enjoying herself rather than just making do on the paltry state pension.

[Laura]

To help people avoiding having to sell their assets and fund their own care.

Or they are looking at an inheritance tax to cover it...

What the great leader meant, but did not quite say:-

"It is imperative that insane property values are maintained & I will do whatever it takes.........."

Edited July 14, 2009 by Laura

[Sledgehead]

taxy taxy!

Welcome to the "no frills" economy. Gordon and the gang have taken the cue from the Lairy O'Leary and his championing of the "low cost" model: split the bill into a thousand "optional" extras and you get a headline figure that sounds like a bargain. For "fare" read "income tax". For "care in old age" read "check-in fee". Of course, none of these "options" are anything of the sort, but strangely the public still seem happy to accept them as long as they are promised a fare of 15p to magaluf; Gordon figures he can pull the same con. So roll out the raft of indirect tax hikes and new dedicated stealth taxes - hypothecation to the political class.

Here's a few from the last quarter:

20090324 - Water bills to increase by 50pc more than inflation

20090407 - Water suppliers to raise bills and cut investment

20090423 - Carbon capture could be funded by levy on electricity bills

20090614 - Shipping lines 'aghast' over UK light dues rise

20090616 - Tax to pay for fast net access

20090707 - Passports up by 3 times rate of inflation

20090714 - Health 'Care insurance' planned for old

[Orsino]

So long as the people who save nothing or who pay nothing receive the same in retirement as those who have saved and paid all their lives there will be no incentive for people to make plans and provide for themselves in their old age. The mechanism by which people pay for their pension is an irrelevance in this respect. Without a clear link between contribution and entitlement there will be no incentive to act responsibly - just as the bail-outs for idiot bankers and property speculators have shown. The system will continue to be abused by people from near and far until it is fundamentally reformed.

[dr ray]

Shipping lines 'aghast' over UK light dues rise

He's taxing light now?

Don't forget there is VAT on the tax too.

[SarahBell]

So long as the people who save nothing or who pay nothing receive the same in retirement as those who have saved and paid all their lives there will be no incentive for people to make plans and provide for themselves in their old age.

Indeed. Which is why their policy of f&cking over the savers now is wrong.

It sends out the message that they don't care

[dr ray]

If it walks, swims and quacks like a wealth tax then it is a wealth tax.

There have been mutterings about this for a while because the confiscation of peoples savings by QE and low interest rates is failing and deflation is increasing the value of money while interest rates are being pushed up by market forces.

So it looks like the only option left is outright theft of peoples savings. If there was ever any reason to save for a pension this takes it away. The returns have been poor anyway, made worse by GBs pension dividend tax and now they are discussing stealing the 25% you can take as cash if and when you ever retire if there is actually any pension still left.

And that is on top of the inheritance wealth tax many have to pay.

Anyone under 40 should seriously think about leaving the UK if they have any marketable skills IMHO. The future for the middle classes is totally bleak in the UK now. USA, Canada and Australia will come out of this but the UK is fecked for at least a generation and they are making it worse.

Currency controls next so you need to get out now if you have savings.

[bomberbrown]

To help people avoiding having to sell their assets and fund their own care.

Or they are looking at an inheritance tax to cover it...

Which would be great cos now they'll be able to reduce national insurance, right?

This is seriously why my 'deposit for a home cash fund' is gradually more and more looking like a 'lets go on a lavish holiday once a year while I can afford it fund'.

I may just as well stay in my lovely rented accomodation.

[bogbrush]

This is seriously why my 'deposit for a home cash fund' is gradually more and more looking like a 'lets go on a lavish holiday once a year while I can afford it fund'.

I may just as well stay in my lovely rented accomodation.

I sympathise, but may I suggest there is a better option?

The issue is to safeguard hard-won wealth from the British state thieves, right? One option is not to have any wealth, but that's a n extreme solution and will land you in desperate trouble later in life because nobody else will atke care of you.

I suggest developing stores of wealth that are outside of their control. That means foreign assets held in places where their state is less likely to pinch it. It doesn't necessarily mean great yielding investments, because we're talking about safeguarding not making brilliant returns.

My own favourite is land in foreign places, although that yellow stuff you're not allowed to talk about here also qualifies.

[Minos]

I sympathise, but may I suggest there is a better option?

The issue is to safeguard hard-won wealth from the British state thieves, right? One option is not to have any wealth, but that's a n extreme solution and will land you in desperate trouble later in life because nobody else will atke care of you.

I suggest developing stores of wealth that are outside of their control. That means foreign assets held in places where their state is less likely to pinch it. It doesn't necessarily mean great yielding investments, because we're talking about safeguarding not making brilliant returns.

My own favourite is land in foreign places, although that yellow stuff you're not allowed to talk about here also qualifies.

Who says no one will look after you when you get old? The greatest joy of democracy is that 51% of the population can legally steal the wealth of the other 49%. If you are going to be a waster make sure there's at least 51% in the same boat. You don't want to be in the 49%. All hail the welfare state.

[bogbrush]

Who says no one will look after you when you get old? The greatest joy of democracy is that 51% of the population can legally steal the wealth of the other 49%. If you are going to be a waster make sure there's at least 51% in the same boat. You don't want to be in the 49%. All hail the welfare state.

Well, let's put it this way; I'd rather not count on anyone doing it for me.

The only boat I plan to be on is the one out of here if it gets too bad.

[dr ray]

I sympathise, but may I suggest there is a better option?

The issue is to safeguard hard-won wealth from the British state thieves, right? One option is not to have any wealth, but that's a n extreme solution and will land you in desperate trouble later in life because nobody else will atke care of you.

I suggest developing stores of wealth that are outside of their control. That means foreign assets held in places where their state is less likely to pinch it. It doesn't necessarily mean great yielding investments, because we're talking about safeguarding not making brilliant returns.

My own favourite is land in foreign places, although that yellow stuff you're not allowed to talk about here also qualifies.

Good advice but my family inherited property abroad and it has been difficult to hide from the UK authorities who insist on including it with my late parents' UK assets for inheritance tax. My fool sister has declared every single penny held abroad and once several members of the family are involved all is lost.

The shiny yellow metal option seems more attractive at the moment though I fully expect this or a future Labour government to severely regulate transactions in PMs and I don't really want to be dealing with shadey underworld characters on the black market when I'm in my 80s and needing the money for a stair lift.

Edited July 14, 2009 by dr ray

[Mrs Bear]

Yet Nanny wants us all to lose weight, drink less, exercise more, and give up the fags so we can all live to be 94, dribbling in our care homes. On top of that, even completely b*ggered nappy-clad dribblers get flu jabs. Why?

In my mother's care home, the best and kindest thing for most of them by far would be a good dose of flu.

What is the point of fending off Nature's euthanasia for people who are either not much more than vegetables, or anxious and fretting most of the time, are not getting any pleasure out of life, and haven't a clue what year it is, let alone what they had for lunch half a minute ago?

And (in my 91 year old mother's case) are convinced that the staff are killing everybody to steal their money, and tells me she wants to go back home to her parents, since her mother could do with some help.

[Bob Loblaw]

Here's what I don't get. If old folks have such a problem having to sell their homes to pay for their care, why did they not just give their assets to their children years before and rent the house off the kids on a long-term tennancy?

But old folk are just so old-school when it comes to financial matters, they hate to talk about it and would rather "shut up and put up". Then their house is sold and their kids get nothing in the end. Pointless!

I've been telling my retired mum for years, to sell her big draughty house find somewhere small and cheap and kit it out with the best insulation then spend the rest enjoying herself rather than just making do on the paltry state pension.

My mother in law (in her 70s but fit and active) has a large, mortgage free house. Are there any rules stopping her selling the house to he daughter for a nominal amount and then the daughter renting it back to her (rent which she would get paid from the council)?

[SarahBell]

My mother in law (in her 70s but fit and active) has a large, mortgage free house. Are there any rules stopping her selling the house to he daughter for a nominal amount and then the daughter renting it back to her (rent which she would get paid from the council)?

Stamp duty will be charged at market value.

And No HB (LHA) between family members without a fight.

[AteMoose]

My mother in law (in her 70s but fit and active) has a large, mortgage free house. Are there any rules stopping her selling the house to he daughter for a nominal amount and then the daughter renting it back to her (rent which she would get paid from the council)?

http://www.taxationweb.co.uk/forum/gifting...-tax-t4954.html