Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
workingpoor

Care Home Fees U-Turn To Hit Middle Classes

Recommended Posts

Out of interest if you put the kids names on the house can it still be sold to pay the fees?

If not what is the limit of you transferring the house to the kids whilst you are still alive and living in it rent free?

And if prices correct and are worth less what then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest if you put the kids names on the house can it still be sold to pay the fees?

If not what is the limit of you transferring the house to the kids whilst you are still alive and living in it rent free?

And if prices correct and are worth less what then?

You used to have to transfer it at least 7 years before death I think. It was a sliding scale down to zero relief at 1 year IIRC.

Of course, protected groups will get special treatment. Farmers in the US dont have to pay inheritance tax for example. One law for us, one for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used to have to transfer it at least 7 years before death I think. It was a sliding scale down to zero relief at 1 year IIRC.

Of course, protected groups will get special treatment. Farmers in the US dont have to pay inheritance tax for example. One law for us, one for them.

Farmers in the UK don`t pay it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The death of the middle class marches on - globally. That is why I remain more biased towards disinflation, big picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used to have to transfer it at least 7 years before death I think. It was a sliding scale down to zero relief at 1 year IIRC.

That only relates to IHT. Long Term Care may still get you if you transferred. If you transfer you have to pay market rent annually to new owner.

People are going to have to be very smart to get around LTC costs. That's assuming Govt / local council will have ANY money at all for it in the future.

Edited by Killer Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of interest if you put the kids names on the house can it still be sold to pay the fees?

If not what is the limit of you transferring the house to the kids whilst you are still alive and living in it rent free?

And if prices correct and are worth less what then?

There are all sorts of pitfalls and tax implications with this. And local authorities are extremely hot on deprivation of assets, I.e. trying to get out of paying care home fees.

Strange though it may seem having a house to sell and therefore wherewithal to pay fees can be a blessing. Families without that 'luxury' and few other assets are wholly dependent on social services, who will often refuse residential care until family are beyond desperate and carers' health is breaking down with the strain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That only relates to IHT. Long Term Care may still get you if you transferred. If you transfer you have to pay market rent annually to new owner.

People are going to have to be very smart to get around LTC costs. That's assuming Govt / local council will have ANY money at all for it in the future.

So if your parents paid you "market" rent electronically and you just returned it as cash or equivalent i.e. shopping / car provision / holidays / redecorating etc. for example or transfer it to an ISA for the grand kids etc...

Joint account with a parent, one person pays in the other always takes out.;)

Take out a mortgage on the parents house recently transferred to you, use it pay off your own mortgage and offset the interest against the rent thus reducing the parent remaining assets faster.

Plenty of work for Lawyers and Accountants!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They always spin it that this is a bad thing. The headline could easily read "Care Home Fees U Turn to benefit Middle Classes", as the middle class taxpayers are the ones who would otherwise end up footing the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You used to have to transfer it at least 7 years before death I think. It was a sliding scale down to zero relief at 1 year IIRC.

Pretty much everyone with half a brain will be doing this or something similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about stealing the persons wealth.Its about making sure the children cant have that wealth passed down,and then their children.

The rich know the only way to escape poverty long term (In our economy) is for assets to be passed down the generations.They cant allow ordinary people that luxury.

The government needs all those decent hard working people in their late 40s ,50s to carry on working forever and to be in debt forever to pay for the 25% whol never work and the rentiers.

If they inherit they can pay off debts/retire/both.

They might also help pay off their childrens debts/mortgage etc.

The government needs to stop this happening.Destroying wages is only half the story,,they need to make sure no assets pass down as well.

Theres nothing wrong with paying for care,,but the people mostly who already have through tax and NI are the ones being creamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much everyone with half a brain will be doing this or something similar.

Won't work. You're thinking about IHT.

There are no time considerations with depravation of assets. If it looks like a transaction occurred (no matter when) to remove assets/capital then they will be assessed as if the capital remains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest way to see the wealthy stay weathty is to cap care home fees......the poor will use all their money the rich will preserve most of their money.

Stay healthy and die before deterioration. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't about stealing the persons wealth.Its about making sure the children cant have that wealth passed down,and then their children.

The rich know the only way to escape poverty long term (In our economy) is for assets to be passed down the generations.They cant allow ordinary people that luxury.

The government needs all those decent hard working people in their late 40s ,50s to carry on working forever and to be in debt forever to pay for the 25% whol never work and the rentiers.

If they inherit they can pay off debts/retire/both.

They might also help pay off their childrens debts/mortgage etc.

The government needs to stop this happening.Destroying wages is only half the story,,they need to make sure no assets pass down as well.

Theres nothing wrong with paying for care,,but the people mostly who already have through tax and NI are the ones being creamed.

+ 1

Wealth is a matter of capital accumulation not just income

A population with capital is hard to coerce (ie a true property owning democracy) so the aim is to ensure that people just have the debt and minimal income

All the peoples on here who cheer this process thinking they are going to be beneficiaries are just plain dumb if they don't realise what is going on.

And of course, it never impacts the truly rich who all have their wealth tied up in trusts and complex webs of companies to avoid paying any taxes down the generations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Won't work. You're thinking about IHT.

There are no time considerations with depravation of assets. If it looks like a transaction occurred (no matter when) to remove assets/capital then they will be assessed as if the capital remains.

To be effective the kid(s) would have to buy the house (pay some stamp duty) and then rent back to the parents and effectually transfer the capital as rent over a long time.

Unfortunate renting to family doesn't work well with most BTL loan T&Cs though I'm sure there is a lucrative gap in the market there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably something you can do with discretionary trusts to avoid paying your own long term care costs.

It would need to be professionally packaged though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight:

* State confiscation of demented person's house = good

* State confiscation of bank a/c balances or gold = bad

This is theft of people's assets pure and simple. The assets are transferred, via the state, to private sector landlords to pay the mortgages on their residential care homes. It doesn't cover NHS nursing care, just the residential part.

i.e. wealth transfer from those with houses who are vulnerable to rentier scumlords by govt. diktat.

Everything HPC ought to be against.

The saving? c. £2b p.a. a rounding error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let me get this straight:

* State confiscation of demented person's house = good

* State confiscation of bank a/c balances or gold = bad

This is theft of people's assets pure and simple. The assets are transferred, via the state, to private sector landlords to pay the mortgages on their residential care homes. It doesn't cover NHS nursing care, just the residential part.

i.e. wealth transfer from those with houses who are vulnerable to rentier scumlords by govt. diktat.

Everything HPC ought to be against.

The saving? c. £2b p.a. a rounding error.

No because nobody forces anyone to go into a care home, or they shouldn't force them......freedom means people can spend their money as they choose...... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably something you can do with discretionary trusts to avoid paying your own long term care costs.

It would need to be professionally packaged though.

Or a life interest trust.

Expensive to set up and maintain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.