Putting house into trust - incase ever go into care

Roaring Chubby said:
I think people feel it’s harsh because the value of a house can get eaten up pretty quickly but I don’t see how the system is materially different to healthcare in general. Some people pay a lot more tax than others but everyone gets the same deal when it comes to public services. It’s bad luck if you need to pay for later life care, but it’s also bad luck if you develop cancer at a young age or get hit by a bus. Life’s curve balls.
Click to expand...
I personally think it’s no like that at all.
Imagine twins
Both earning £500p/w
One spends every penny, lives in a council house and has a pretty good lifestyle
The other twin has bought their own house, pays into a pension and saves for a rainy day
Both get dementia at 65
Both end up in the same home
1s house has to be sold to pay for the care, all their pension is taken away, all but £23250 is spent on care
The 2nd has everything paid for.
How’s that fair?
Roaring Chubby said:
That person might have paid millions in income tax too. Where do you draw the line? Tax at source is ok but tax bricks and mortar which stops the children getting a windfall isn’t?
Click to expand...
Or sat in <40% bracket all their working lives?
You need to be very comfortable or skint as the ones ( the majority of us) will get shafted when we need care
 
Last edited:


Some Random Guy said:
Should top yourself when the time comes rather than defrauding the taxpayer marra.
Click to expand...
I’d rather top myself than go into a home.

I’ll be making sure I’ve fully lived my life before I get too old to go on without being in a home. Then it’s a one way ticket to Switzerland with a bottle of fine champagne
 
cornish mackem said:
I personally think it’s no like that at all.
Imagine twins
Both earning £500p/w
One spends every penny, lives in a council house and has a pretty good lifestyle
The other twin has bought their own house, pays into a pension and saves for a rainy day
Both get dementia at 65
Both end up in the same home
1s house has to be sold to pay for the care, all their pension is taken away, all but £23250 is spent on care
The 2nd has everything paid for.
How’s that fair?

Or sat in <40% bracket all their working lives?
You need to be very comfortable or skint as the ones ( the majority of us) will get shafted when we need care
Click to expand...

Both twins are fine and getting cared for, in your example. They won’t give a monkeys. It’s the children getting bitter about it because they can’t buy a new Audi now. Buying a house is a choice and there are winners and losers like with all investments.
 
Roaring Chubby said:
I think people feel it’s harsh because the value of a house can get eaten up pretty quickly but I don’t see how the system is materially different to healthcare in general. Some people pay a lot more tax than others but everyone gets the same deal when it comes to public services. It’s bad luck if you need to pay for later life care, but it’s also bad luck if you develop cancer at a young age or get hit by a bus. Life’s curve balls.
Click to expand...
Aye, that's true, but that's progressive and they only take a part.

They don't sell your house to pay your medical bills while you're under the knife. Actually, come to think of it, the taxes that person paid during their lives should have paid for their care already, just like it pays for their healthcare.
 
PTR said:
Aye, that's true, but that's progressive and they only take a part.

They don't sell your house to pay your medical bills while you're under the knife. Actually, come to think of it, the taxes that person paid during their lives should have paid for their care already, just like it pays for their healthcare

I think the issue here is that people think later life care is the same as regular healthcare, i don’t think it is.
Click to expand...
 
Roaring Chubby said:
I think the issue here is that people think later life care is the same as regular healthcare, i don’t think it is.
Click to expand...
Yeah, its not exactly the same. But I would suggest that it should be part of the services we all pay for in our taxes. Its funded by the local authority anyway, so why is there one rule for Peter, and a different rule for Paul. Its unfair.
 
PTR said:
Yeah, its not exactly the same. But I would suggest that it should be part of the services we all pay for in our taxes. Its funded by the local authority anyway, so why is there one rule for Peter, and a different rule for Paul. Its unfair.
Click to expand...

I think it’s ok to suggest that there is a change, I wouldn’t neccasarily be against it. The rules are the same for everyone at the moment, personal circumstances just result in different outcomes. For every pensioner who has had to use their home to pay for later life care, there are many more who have made big money on capital gains that can be passed down which people in council houses did not enjoy. The guy in the council house “wins” if he gets later life care for nowt. Personally, I don’t feel like paying more tax to fund some old boys care so his kids can buy a new car/holiday each when he snuffs it, which is ultimately what this is all about.
 
Woodman Boy said:
I saw a solicitor about my mam’s situation and she doubted what I had done stating that the council could claim I had deliberately denied them the funds if my mam went in to care.
I had, in reality, but when the trust document was signed my mam’s health was okay and how could the council prove what I had done and why? It was also the opposite, how could I prove I hadn’t done it to stop the council getting the money? I couldn’t.
The council accepted the trust document and the house is safe, but maybe this rule will be tightened in the future.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree, it’s becoming the norm now to evade care costs, summit will change.
I got told when the house is split, the LA don’t tend to come after a qtr of the house or a half of a house, this was a financial advisor who told me.
I get the morals of someone has to pay I really do, but my priority will be the kids getting the money I’ve earned over 40 years rather than the LA, end of.
My taxes and never claiming a penny gives me piece of mind, almost ;)
 
arthursboy said:
Yeah I agree, it’s becoming the norm now to evade care costs, summit will change.
I got told when the house is split, the LA don’t tend to come after a qtr of the house or a half of a house, this was a financial advisor who told me.
I get the morals of someone has to pay I really do, but my priority will be the kids getting the money I’ve earned over 40 years rather than the LA, end of.
My taxes and never claiming a penny gives me piece of mind, almost ;)
Click to expand...

Who do you vote for?
 
Roaring Chubby said:
I think it’s ok to suggest that there is a change, I wouldn’t neccasarily be against it. The rules are the same for everyone at the moment, personal circumstances just result in different outcomes. For every pensioner who has had to use their home to pay for later life care, there are many more who have made big money on capital gains that can be passed down which people in council houses did not enjoy. The guy in the council house “wins” if he gets later life care for nowt. Personally, I don’t feel like paying more tax to fund some old boys care so his kids can buy a new car/holiday each when he snuffs it, which is ultimately what this is all about.
Click to expand...

Ideally the huge amount of tax we pay on everything in Britain would find its way into funding free top quality care for everyone be it at home or in a care home environment.
 
To add further complications to both a funding and ethical question, imagine two people in the same care home, both own a house and only one pays because one was admitted under one type of legislation (Care Act) and one admitted under another (Mental Health Act),.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
PTR said:
Aye, that's true, but that's progressive and they only take a part.

They don't sell your house to pay your medical bills while you're under the knife. Actually, come to think of it, the taxes that person paid during their lives should have paid for their care already, just like it pays for their healthcare.
Click to expand...
That’s kind of how things will be with a work based pension. It’s going to be a dementia tax for so many
JJH said:
Ideally the huge amount of tax we pay on everything in Britain would find its way into funding free top quality care for everyone be it at home or in a care home environment.
Click to expand...
Work based pensions?
It’s too much of a coincidence that these are now law, it’s a backdoor taxation to fund chunks of our care in years to come
 
Last edited:
Roaring Chubby said:
Ideally is great...what about reality?
Click to expand...
Well reality comes when the government starts to take social care a bit more seriously. Along with the NHS I think both are too big and important to be left alone with individual governments every 5 years .
I would like to see a cross party group set up along with leading NHS/ social care experts to cost out the true funding required to provide first class care.
I think presently too much money is wasted and both services are guilty.
Whatever the figure is it still needs to be found from somewhere ? Either cuts from another service ...hs2 etc or by raising NI by a percent. I don't have a problem paying a bit extra tax if I know it is going to be fully utilised for things like this.
 
JJH said:
Well reality comes when the government starts to take social care a bit more seriously. Along with the NHS I think both are too big and important to be left alone with individual governments every 5 years .
I would like to see a cross party group set up along with leading NHS/ social care experts to cost out the true funding required to provide first class care.
I think presently too much money is wasted and both services are guilty.
Whatever the figure is it still needs to be found from somewhere ? Either cuts from another service ...hs2 etc or by raising NI by a percent. I don't have a problem paying a bit extra tax if I know it is going to be fully utilised for things like this.
Click to expand...

Don’t disagree with the mindset but there will be cases where it suits the OAP to go into the care home if it’s free (to them) and the kids cash in to the detriment of other public services and tax payers. Complicated topic.
 
Roaring Chubby said:
Don’t disagree with the mindset but there will be cases where it suits the OAP to go into the care home if it’s free (to them) and the kids cash in to the detriment of other public services and tax payers. Complicated topic.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest and say most people I know would want it for nothing.
There is a big disparity in quality of care homes across U.K...REIT's are hoovering up huge numbers by front loading the debt to finance the deal which inturn means interest has to be paid and pressure is put on ones to make more profit which usually leads to poor care.
If we could set the bar for minimum quality of care in terms of the home environment/staffing levels etc provided by public funding then this would cater for those who have no funds and those who want to keep money for family.
Of course those with money will still be able to move into carehomes that offer more luxurious settings and charge accordingly
 
JJH said:
Well reality comes when the government starts to take social care a bit more seriously. Along with the NHS I think both are too big and important to be left alone with individual governments every 5 years .
I would like to see a cross party group set up along with leading NHS/ social care experts to cost out the true funding required to provide first class care.
I think presently too much money is wasted and both services are guilty.
Whatever the figure is it still needs to be found from somewhere ? Either cuts from another service ...hs2 etc or by raising NI by a percent. I don't have a problem paying a bit extra tax if I know it is going to be fully utilised for things like this.
Click to expand...
I know you say a cross party policy but the last party that suggested putting up taxes to pay for stuff came 4th or 5th in the recent election
 
cornish mackem said:
I know you say a cross party policy but the last party that suggested putting up taxes to pay for stuff came 4th or 5th in the recent election
Click to expand...
True but they had a bunch of other stuff that was absolutely loony.
I think the time is approaching when something has to be done .
The Green paper keeps getting delayed 😕
 
JJH said:
I'll be honest and say most people I know would want it for nothing.
There is a big disparity in quality of care homes across U.K...REIT's are hoovering up huge numbers by front loading the debt to finance the deal which inturn means interest has to be paid and pressure is put on ones to make more profit which usually leads to poor care.
If we could set the bar for minimum quality of care in terms of the home environment/staffing levels etc provided by public funding then this would cater for those who have no funds and those who want to keep money for family.
Of course those with money will still be able to move into carehomes that offer more luxurious settings and charge accordingly
Click to expand...

I think the reality will be that if the choice is a tax hike or free later life care most people will take the punt and say lower tax.
 

Back
Top