Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
FedupTeddiBear

Btl And Care Costs - R4 Moneybox Live

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042l784

A lady phoned in at about 21:30 who has developed MS. She is likely to need long-term care but has discovered that because she owns 2 BTL flats instead of belonging to a conventional pension plan, she will need to cover her care costs herself.

It is quite tragic that she has developed this illness at quite a young age and I feel sorry for her, but I was wondering how many people who are relying on property as a "pension" have researched the risks thoroughly enough. This lady seems to have been taken by surprise by this discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I heard that. She said she doesn't make enough from rental income to pay tax. On two small flats?

Anyhoo, the experienced presenters seemed to laugh it off - "Heard it before, babe! But sorry about the illness."

There was another woman wondering about the fairness of some ridiculous discrimination, and the presenters just shrugged their shoulders, knowing from experience that none of this state management makes sense.

My overall impression - more evidence for getting rid of the uncertainty of the benefits system, and replacing it with a basic income for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My overall impression - more evidence for getting rid of the uncertainty of the benefits system, and replacing it with a basic income for everyone.

That's not going to cover the cost of long term care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042l784

A lady phoned in at about 21:30 who has developed MS. She is likely to need long-term care but has discovered that because she owns 2 BTL flats instead of belonging to a conventional pension plan, she will need to cover her care costs herself.

It is quite tragic that she has developed this illness at quite a young age and I feel sorry for her, but I was wondering how many people who are relying on property as a "pension" have researched the risks thoroughly enough. This lady seems to have been taken by surprise by this discovery.

Couldn't care less.

Also since when does having a conventional pension means you don't have to pay care-needs . That wasn't an experience with a relative early 2000s with MS. Paying £1200+ a month from his pension, and local council arranging a charge on his side of the house (tenants-in-common with his wife). The nursing element became free in 2004 (I think - according to medical need), but not the care/residential facilities).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just remembered their experience more clearly. His conventional pension paid more of the care-fees, but not all of them (arrears built up), thus the council's charge his side of the house.

And the nursing element was always free (as I remember it, and understand it), but in 2003/04 there was an awakening that many people had been paying the nursing element at care/residential homes on invoices in with the care-home fees (when the nursing element should have been covered by NHS), and thus began claims to get it back / stop paying it future. Things may have changed since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just remembered their experience more clearly. His conventional pension paid more of the care-fees, but not all of them (arrears built up), thus the council's charge his side of the house.

And the nursing element was always free (as I remember it, and understand it), but in 2003/04 there was an awakening that many people had been paying the nursing element at care/residential homes on invoices in with the care-home fees (when the nursing element should have been covered by NHS), and thus began claims to get it back / stop paying it future. Things may have changed since.

There was a lot of talk about reclaiming stuff. Bureaucratic nightmare. Then they got into trusts etc. Arrrrgggh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not going to cover the cost of long term care.

Yeah, it's a big issue. But basic income may stabilise families, keep them together so remote care is minimised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, just mentioning this as lots of people seem to think europe is some sort of nirvana. In Germany, the costs of long term care can be recovered from the children. Oviously there's some sort of formula, so people on middle and low incomes don't pay that much, ut I imagine it would be a bit of a shock for the average brit who get's upset thinking how unfair it is that granny's house (his inheritance!) has to pay for care.

There was even a case recently of a guy who had been disowned by his father at the age of 18, had no contact with him for decades, and still had to cough up, because the court decided he had still been the beneficiary of parental care up to the age of adulthood.

The concept of the welfare state here is much more "you get back what you paid in" than "the poor get everything free".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, just mentioning this as lots of people seem to think europe is some sort of nirvana. In Germany, the costs of long term care can be recovered from the children. Oviously there's some sort of formula, so people on middle and low incomes don't pay that much, ut I imagine it would be a bit of a shock for the average brit who get's upset thinking how unfair it is that granny's house (his inheritance!) has to pay for care.

There was even a case recently of a guy who had been disowned by his father at the age of 18, had no contact with him for decades, and still had to cough up, because the court decided he had still been the beneficiary of parental care up to the age of adulthood.

The concept of the welfare state here is much more "you get back what you paid in" than "the poor get everything free".

This is a whole other aspect of 'in Germany everybody rents' - unless they have substantial savings there will be nothing to fall back on, so no wonder they go after the kids. I don't suppose care costs in Germany are much different from here, and presumably they have the same problems of so many people living longer and many more cases of dementia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's a big issue. But basic income may stabilise families, keep them together so remote care is minimised.

The vast majority of people only go into care homes after they have come to need 24/7 care, i.e on call ALL day, ALL night, day in day out, and this is something that very few relatives can supply for long without becoming ill/exhausted themselves. So I don't see that any 'basic income' would make the slightest difference. Dementia can be particularly stressful and exhausting to cope with, and this is regardless of income - unless of course you are rich enough to pay for live-in carers who can take over completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its simple. Let me say this slooooooooowly:

Any asset outside of a pension or main residential property will be liquidated to pay for care fees or if you lose your job .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its simple. Let me say this slooooooooowly:

Any asset outside of a pension or main residential property will be liquidated to pay for care fees or if you lose your job .

I suspect a cashed in pension (under new rules?) and 'the house' unless lived in by a dependent will and should be liquidated to pay for care fees - as it should be. an uncashed in pension which is in payment becomes income which is then taken by the care homes anyway. (as should income from BTLs)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect a cashed in pension (under new rules?) and 'the house' unless lived in by a dependent will and should be liquidated to pay for care fees - as it should be. an uncashed in pension which is in payment becomes income which is then taken by the care homes anyway. (as should income from BTLs)

If there is not enough cash or other assets to pay for care then BTLs are just another asset that will have to be sold.

The usual thing if you are not entirely self- funded is for all income to be taken, except for a small weekly amount for personal expenditure, toiletries, clothing, haircuts, etc.

Often not enough I suspect. After my aunt died in her care home and I went to clear her room, staff asked if I would leave all her clothes since they had LA funded residents with no extra cash and no relatives to buy them anything they needed. :-(. They even said to leave a couple of pretty old, faded nighties.

It was a lovely care home, though - far from the horrors on TV.

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All care should be funded by the state.

That's the entire point of insurance based systems where the outcome for specific individuals is uncertain.

You don't pay car insurance and then expect your car insurer to come and take your car away when you make a claim do you?

The whole system is a complete nonsense.

It's easily fundable as a state insurance system for everyone whether they need home care or residential care. The amounts inbolved are insignificant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easily fundable as a state insurance system for everyone whether they need home care or residential care. The amounts inbolved are insignificant.

Great idea....state insurance for the nation...now what might they call it.....National Insurance ?

We're taken for mugs by them that's taking our cash.

We need less government, not more.

We need our own money in our pocket, not our money in their pockets

We need personal responsibility.

We need some major changes.

Edited by TheCountOfNowhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All care should be funded by the state.

That's the entire point of insurance based systems where the outcome for specific individuals is uncertain.

You don't pay car insurance and then expect your car insurer to come and take your car away when you make a claim do you?

The whole system is a complete nonsense.

It's easily fundable as a state insurance system for everyone whether they need home care or residential care. The amounts inbolved are insignificant.

Insignificant, eh?

Making pensioners pay national insurance should easily cover it then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect a cashed in pension (under new rules?) and 'the house' unless lived in by a dependent will and should be liquidated to pay for care fees - as it should be. an uncashed in pension which is in payment becomes income which is then taken by the care homes anyway. (as should income from BTLs)

This...

why do you think the govt changed the rules? old folk with an annuity can only pay a fixed (far too small usually) amount towards their care for the last year of their lives. But a cashed in pension in the bank.. the govt can take the lot. likewise with the change to allow transferable IHT allowance. Under the old rules middle class people will try to transfer cash to their children while they are both alive (also care costs unlikely as one will care for the other). Now the last one living keeps £650k and then gets ill goes into home and govt takes what it needs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Insignificant, eh?

Making pensioners pay national insurance should easily cover it then.

Couple of billion p.a. yep.

Say 1/10th of the transfer to private landlords for the housing benefit bill.

I'm assuming one day you're expecting to be a pensioner too, in which case I dare say you'd agree that it benefits everybody to pay a small amount in some form of state insurance scheme to cover against the possibility of dementia care.

If not, what is your argument against it?

In terms of how the fiscal arrangements work I would be strongly in favour of it being progressive, of course. It could be financed mostly by high earners or via wealth taxes, it doesn't really matter. If it were, say, £2bn p.a. then it's hardly worth worrying about where it comes from, it's a tiny issue in comparison to the benefit.

Edited by R K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of billion p.a. yep.

Say 1/10th of the transfer to private landlords for the housing benefit bill.

I'm assuming one day you're expecting to be a pensioner too, in which case I dare say you'd agree that it benefits everybody to pay a small amount in some form of state insurance scheme to cover against the possibility of dementia care.

If not, what is your argument against it?

In terms of how the fiscal arrangements work I would be strongly in favour of it being progressive, of course. It could be financed mostly by high earners or via wealth taxes, it doesn't really matter. If it were, say, £2bn p.a. then it's hardly worth worrying about where it comes from, it's a tiny issue in comparison to the benefit.

So why didn't anyone vote for that over the past 40 years?

Why now start an insurance scheme, I'm paying into for 40 years and the likely very soon beneficiaries don't?

Is that the young's battle with the rich? Not the old's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just remembered their experience more clearly. His conventional pension paid more of the care-fees, but not all of them (arrears built up), thus the council's charge his side of the house.

And the nursing element was always free (as I remember it, and understand it), but in 2003/04 there was an awakening that many people had been paying the nursing element at care/residential homes on invoices in with the care-home fees (when the nursing element should have been covered by NHS), and thus began claims to get it back / stop paying it future. Things may have changed since.

Yes and 3 claim companies later one I know of isn't settled. They needed the will now though, cos she's died and any moneys got back will be distributed per the will.

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   212 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.