Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Middle-class pensioners to lose benefits under Tory plan to fund social care


Recommended Posts

just to correct a previous poster it is not £200 per pensioner - it is £200 (only rises for the very elderly) per household so it helped single pensioners who have only one income to pay all their utilities. As it is an annual payment it works out at £4 pw per household :huh: 

my beef re its withdrawal (which would give the young who despise the over 65s less of a chance to 'bash') is that it should be scrapped for all pensioners. The poorest pensioners already get pension credit, energy prices cut, free boilers, council tax paid and pension credit for a couple of over £300 per week (single pensioners get circa £150 I think) so I cannot believe they will freeze to death if it is taken away.  Think of the admin saved to get rid of it !

Edited by olliegog
x
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

4 hours ago, fru-gal said:

I bet the Government will stop allowing Filipino nurses in though as they will need to ensure that care is extremely costly, of poor quality and that it benefits the banks in terms of ££££. Anything that reduces the cost will not be allowed.

Too true, will need to document every activity in detail with every contact, have regular approved training, follow endless risk and accountability rules, have appraisals and a manager, demonstrate competence lengthily and often, pay a huge number of managers....and make a large profit for someone. That'll be a grand a week +, thank you. 

Some regulation is essential, but these systems strain at gnats of imperfection and swallow camels of horrible abuse because the established bureaucracies rely on adding infinitely to processes instead of using understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

"Deprivation of assets" rules

Edit: Although if you were to MEW the full value and spend every penny, they'd be in a bit of a quandary.

.....MEW it give it to the kids and live a healthy seven years or more?

.......thing is to get the best interest rates/cheapest debt you require a good income and a good few years of life to pay it back.. equity withdrawal high interest, compounding IS giving it away, then it is gone.......Your health is your wealth.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Once it's gone, it's gone. There will be no way to claw anything back.

So as I said earlier, this rule will just encourage everyone to spend everything now. Why bother building up any assets - just spend it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, winkie said:

.....MEW it give it to the kids and live a healthy seven years or more?

No. That works for inheritance tax. Not for means tested benefits.

2 minutes ago, winkie said:

Edit: Although if you were to MEW the full value and spend every penny, they'd be in a bit of a quandary.

And I believe this is caught by the excess spending rule.

Sell shares in P&O !

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Errol said:

Agreed. Once it's gone, it's gone. There will be no way to claw anything back.

So as I said earlier, this rule will just encourage everyone to spend everything now. Why bother building up any assets - just spend it all.

That's what any current governbankment wants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CunningPlan said:

No. That works for inheritance tax. Not for means tested benefits.

And I believe this is caught by the excess spending rule.

Sell shares in P&O !

I didn't say that Bruce did......

Re mewing to give away late in life do have to take iht into account..... thousands borrow against their homes to help their kids out with a deposit to buy a home else there would be no hope in them ever buying a home.... once their home is spent on care costs they will have no hope in receiving the inheritance they expected.....born with nothing die with nothing.;)

Edited by winkie
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Democorruptcy said:

That's what any current governbankment wants.

Yes, but you could take it out in cash and then 'spend' it on something not traceable. Or say you gave it away in the street or had it stolen. The money is gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billy budd said:

Interesting that there's no time limit at all.

I know of someone who bought houses outright for several descendants and is keen to live out the 7 years to avoid IHT.

What would happen if they burn through the other assets and need more for care?

Would the state be able to take back the houses? Immovable assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Errol said:

Isn't the new Tory plan to make people pay nearly all their assets for care, just an invitation for everyone to live for today, and spend their money well before old age?

After all, who wants to spend their entire life saving up to pay for care when they are old and decrepit? What's the point? Effectively you are just working to build up resources to pay for the small time before you die.

Why not just live well between 30-60 (or whatever) and then just rely on whatever is available at that time?

They are literally removing all incentive to save, and making it more likely that people will withdraw all equity from a house a long time before old age to spend or give away. That's before I mention people selling houses, storing wealth in gold or offshore.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/25/disabled-people-disabilities-health-care-homes

I suspect we'll see more of this for those without savings or assets.  The alternative will be worse...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

If you are on NMW you can't be paying much if any tax? Surely?

When factoring working tax credits you have to earn around £40k a year before you actually contribute to the tax pot rather than take from it.

Not for a single person you dont.Under Universal credit a single person on NMW gets zero benefits.The jackpot goes to people with children (ADHD even better).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Unless I'm not understanding it correctly, they are suggesting that there will be an allowance of £100K that they will not take, for care costs, that you can leave to the kids.

I'm not sure how this works for a married couple with joint assets?

Hopefully, voluntary euthanasia will be introduced for those of us who have no desire to live as a vegetable whilst our assets are being eroded to keep us that way!

That's my big question.

My Dad has Alzheimer's and will probably go into a home within the next year. Under current rules, as the house is jointly owned with my Mum, it is not added to the equation, and once my Dad's savings are down to 23 grand, the council pay for his care (or most of it). Once he dies, my Mum gets to stay in her house and no one can come after it. under these rules though, it seems that in the same scenario, once my Dad dies the council can come after whatever his outstanding bill is and my Mum will have to sell the house to pay for the bills. Now if he is in for a year, it's not the end of the world - fifty grand less and she would still be able to buy a decent apartment, but if he is in for ten years, she will only have a hundred grand left, and not be able to buy an apartment, nor qualify for social housing...she will be in poverty.

This change is pretty nasty for some people who may get caught in a trap - it smacks of the kind of mess that I see over the border in the US. Personally I think there should be an upper ceiling on care costs imposed to stop people getting completely wiped out by this...given that less than 10% will ever incur costs of >100k, they should make it this to avoid the situation I describe. If they don't, I agree, just give up on trying to work within the system as the system is only there to serve the banker bastards, the government and the feckless idiots who don't ever save.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo homes should not be looked upon as get rich quick financial instruments......there are millions now that rent, have always rented and have no chance of ever of OWNING their own home......they will be forever paying social or private rents or repaying loan debts.....younger people today have even less of a chance of ever owning their own home than young working people in the past, then they needed no HELP and if they are not given a HELPFUL deposit have no chance.......who will be paying their rents and care costs when their hard working income no longer covers the rent and care costs???

Others, get help when born, help to buy private education, help to get the best paid jobs and help to buy houses......some just don't know how the other half live.....;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Unless I'm not understanding it correctly, they are suggesting that there will be an allowance of £100K that they will not take, for care costs, that you can leave to the kids.

I'm not sure how this works for a married couple with joint assets?

Hopefully, voluntary euthanasia will be introduced for those of us who have no desire to live as a vegetable whilst our assets are being eroded to keep us that way!

Euthanasia > Flights to Switzerland via Easyjet will be 200K, only for those who can afford it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, HovelinHove said:

That's my big question.

My Dad has Alzheimer's and will probably go into a home within the next year. Under current rules, as the house is jointly owned with my Mum, it is not added to the equation, and once my Dad's savings are down to 23 grand, the council pay for his care (or most of it). Once he dies, my Mum gets to stay in her house and no one can come after it. under these rules though, it seems that in the same scenario, once my Dad dies the council can come after whatever his outstanding bill is and my Mum will have to sell the house to pay for the bills. Now if he is in for a year, it's not the end of the world - fifty grand less and she would still be able to buy a decent apartment, but if he is in for ten years, she will only have a hundred grand left, and not be able to buy an apartment, nor qualify for social housing...she will be in poverty.

This change is pretty nasty for some people who may get caught in a trap - it smacks of the kind of mess that I see over the border in the US. Personally I think there should be an upper ceiling on care costs imposed to stop people getting completely wiped out by this...given that less than 10% will ever incur costs of >100k, they should make it this to avoid the situation I describe. If they don't, I agree, just give up on trying to work within the system as the system is only there to serve the banker bastards, the government and the feckless idiots who don't ever save.

I think it says that the bill will be put as a charge against the house and only payable on the death of the surviving spouse from that estate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HovelinHove said:

That's my big question.

My Dad has Alzheimer's and will probably go into a home within the next year. Under current rules, as the house is jointly owned with my Mum, it is not added to the equation, and once my Dad's savings are down to 23 grand, the council pay for his care (or most of it). Once he dies, my Mum gets to stay in her house and no one can come after it. under these rules though, it seems that in the same scenario, once my Dad dies the council can come after whatever his outstanding bill is and my Mum will have to sell the house to pay for the bills. Now if he is in for a year, it's not the end of the world - fifty grand less and she would still be able to buy a decent apartment, but if he is in for ten years, she will only have a hundred grand left, and not be able to buy an apartment, nor qualify for social housing...she will be in poverty.

This change is pretty nasty for some people who may get caught in a trap - it smacks of the kind of mess that I see over the border in the US. Personally I think there should be an upper ceiling on care costs imposed to stop people getting completely wiped out by this...given that less than 10% will ever incur costs of >100k, they should make it this to avoid the situation I describe. If they don't, I agree, just give up on trying to work within the system as the system is only there to serve the banker bastards, the government and the feckless idiots who don't ever save.

Tenants in common?

 

Just did this myself , not for care home purposes tho , diffo reasons. 

Anyways It means each person owns there own  bit of the house and as I understand it a council could only come after say your dads part of the asset.

You'd have to check it out , I aint no expert but thats how I understood it at the solicitors.

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mat109 said:

Wow, i didn't realise the ratios between staff and people being cared for were that high!

1 2/3 staff for every elderly person. No wonder care is so expensive. If you spend 3 years in care, that's 5 man years... 

I expect a significant amount (most?) of frontline care staff are part time. Tax credits. Innit. So the ratios make more sense  

I have a family member in that industry who suggested as much  

might not be correct  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Those who voted for Brexit will pay for Brexit!

 

Surely it is the youngsters waiting to inherit their homes who lose out - as this will mean the house can be used to fund homecare as well as residential care? But no one will be forced to sell their home while they are alive - a charge will be placed on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

 

Surely it is the youngsters waiting to inherit their homes who lose out - as this will mean the house can be used to fund homecare as well as residential care? But no one will be forced to sell their home while they are alive - a charge will be placed on it.

All we need now is for the banks to enter the care provision market

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

 

Surely it is the youngsters waiting to inherit their homes who lose out - as this will mean the house can be used to fund homecare as well as residential care? But no one will be forced to sell their home while they are alive - a charge will be placed on it.

I think anyone having to wait to inherit a house has already lost out (this is not far off the system in Cuba!)

Wealthy youngsters might lose out, but the alternative is all youngsters losing out through a lack of housing coming to market and paying for the care through tax today, or shouldering the debt tomorrow. Not just youngsters either, but all tax payers. The 'old person's' argument is they've paid their tax, but they frankly have not paid enough. If that generation, or indeed any generation, had paid enough the national debt would be zero.

It is surely a more equitable solution to make someone with the means to pay foot the bill than some over indebted 20 something grad working 60 hour weeks to earn their stripes and get qualified in something while forking out a bomb in rent each month because of the housing crisis which is in part created by under occupied family homes lived in by one or two (relatively) wealthy OAPs.

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

 

Surely it is the youngsters waiting to inherit their homes who lose out - as this will mean the house can be used to fund homecare as well as residential care? But no one will be forced to sell their home while they are alive - a charge will be placed on it.

Depends on how you look at the views of people wishing to hand down assets.

And key point from this change is more people will pay. So whilst the anti-Brexit affluent will have paid anyway, it's the middle classes being hit here.

Edited by Mikhail Liebenstein
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, durhamborn said:

Another of Browns disasters.Young lad over the road working full time on NMW job pays tax to hand to the retired policeman and his retired teacher wife next door who retired at 50 and have an income of at least 4 times his and a mortgage free house.No really,they do live over the road.

The only problem i have with this is that once again,those just over the limit who probably worked and saved a bit lose it while the person next door who never worked keeps it.

The counting your house as wealth for care in the home looks like the first part of them going after all wealth.I notice wording of "products will be available" so no doubt their mates in the city have come up with a way they can share the assets with the government.

The key problem the elite have is keeping the middle working forever to pay for the 20/30% who live on benefits.One part is getting the young in massive mortgage debt.The second is how to stop 55 year olds who have worked hard and saved retiring once they inherit their parents house.Seems this care thing is a move to start removing that from as many people as possible.

Older people who need care should band together in an area and form a co-operative.Employ 3 carers between 20 of them and pay the carers cash in hand.Girls just popping in to see them and offer christian charity.I know several people already who pay council workers cash in hand for care already.The girls simply call in on their rounds.Not high level care of course,but a good deal for the older folk and the girl,sod off state.

I already visit my great auntie and gran regularly, do there shopping, odd jobs.. The problem I see is as always is the housing. when families separate over wide areas because of housing costs the support for older relatives disappears. In many ways so does the older persons will to carry on. They tend to sit in a chair and wither away. Families in most cases should be able to provide the basic help for relatives to a point.. I understand there becomes a point where professional help is needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.