If an OAP goes into care.......
02 October 2006, 02:15 PM
#62
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
I for one don't want to live past the age of 70. Yes, everyone's different, but if you have little to live for when you're old, then why not be allowed to end your life.
) turned 60 this week, hes fit asa fiddle and I honestly dont think he'll be much worse by the age of 70. There are very active happy people in their 90's so to pick an age not to live past is a bit mad isnt it? My Gran is 74 and had a tattoo 2 months ago 
its something she always wanted to do and thought fek it, may aswell 
good on her I say 
02 October 2006, 02:31 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm currently going through this situation as it now looks like my Father has to go into a residential/care home after a prolonged period in hospital/intermediate care this year. I've already been asked about the property that I live in, but fortunately this was signed over to me some 20-odd years ago (all legally, with solicitors etc), so Greedy Gordon can't get his bear-like claws into it.
ChrisL is right about selling/giving the property over th their child. All that would happen there is that the Social Services would be within their rights to demand the property or cash equivalent from the child. Similar rules apply to savings. Where I am, the limit on savings is £20 500; above this and you pay for your own care until the level of savings falls below £20 500. Giving any of this away within the 6 months before going into care also results in the Social Services chasing the reciepient for the value of the gift of money.
ChrisL is right about selling/giving the property over th their child. All that would happen there is that the Social Services would be within their rights to demand the property or cash equivalent from the child. Similar rules apply to savings. Where I am, the limit on savings is £20 500; above this and you pay for your own care until the level of savings falls below £20 500. Giving any of this away within the 6 months before going into care also results in the Social Services chasing the reciepient for the value of the gift of money.
02 October 2006, 02:44 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
some staggeringly crap advice here as always. These folks need care now, they cant "give their house away" "hide the cash" "use a trust" etc, etc
02 October 2006, 04:09 PM
#65
Originally Posted by TonyG
I'm currently going through this situation as it now looks like my Father has to go into a residential/care home after a prolonged period in hospital/intermediate care this year. I've already been asked about the property that I live in, but fortunately this was signed over to me some 20-odd years ago (all legally, with solicitors etc), so Greedy Gordon can't get his bear-like claws into it.
The government, the self-same one that promised to end this nightmare for old people when it came to power, have closed THAT loophole too
Alcazar
02 October 2006, 04:33 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alcazar
According to CAB this morning, there is NO LONGER a time limit. If Social Services feel that the homeowner sold, gave away, or whatever, thir house to avoid care fees, no matter how long ago, they can, and will, make a charge on you.
The government, the self-same one that promised to end this nightmare for old people when it came to power, have closed THAT loophole too
Alcazar
The government, the self-same one that promised to end this nightmare for old people when it came to power, have closed THAT loophole too
Alcazar
02 October 2006, 04:54 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Weston Super Mare, Somerset.
Posts: 14,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any one know if the same principle applies for a couple gifting their house to their kids to avoid inheritance tax??
If it doesn't and they did then it would be interesting to know what would happen if the couple then needed care. dl
If it doesn't and they did then it would be interesting to know what would happen if the couple then needed care. dl
02 October 2006, 08:57 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I have ad blocked my rep - so dont waste your time!
Posts: 1,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IHT is covered by the 7 year rule and gift with reservation legislation.
LTC gifts are covered by deliberate deprivation rules.
staggering but true - there are few loopsholes anywhere.
LTC gifts are covered by deliberate deprivation rules.
staggering but true - there are few loopsholes anywhere.
04 October 2006, 09:20 AM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forcing people forced into care through age related ill health to use the value of their houses paid for by taxed money and having paid their National Insurance through earning their own living, is totally unprincipled and should be condemned on moral grounds. Just shows how two faced this sorry apology for a government really is. This is nothing to do with socialist leanings, just fair treatment.
Les
Les
Les
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 04 October 2006 at 03:17 PM.
04 October 2006, 10:30 AM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by pslewis
NO it is NOT ok if, by getting that wealth, the taxpayers have to fund old age care!!
I have never been given anything, at anytime, by anyone .. what I have I have worked for.
If the person leaving the wealth have not called on the state for Old Age Care then the siblings should get the wealth.
I am NOT against inheritance - I AM against taxpayers paying for the care of a person who has wealth enough to pay but would rather give a house, say, to a grandchild!!! The taxpayer is effectively buying that house for the grandson AND THATS PLAIN WRONG!
Pete
I have never been given anything, at anytime, by anyone .. what I have I have worked for.
If the person leaving the wealth have not called on the state for Old Age Care then the siblings should get the wealth.
I am NOT against inheritance - I AM against taxpayers paying for the care of a person who has wealth enough to pay but would rather give a house, say, to a grandchild!!! The taxpayer is effectively buying that house for the grandson AND THATS PLAIN WRONG!
Pete
Dave
04 October 2006, 10:41 AM
#71
Originally Posted by davegtt
Give the house to the lad on the condition he looks after them 
that way he earns the property and the granparents get the appropriate care, everyones a winner.
Seriously though it is a sad state of affairs, it makes you think why bother owning your own home in the long run.
that way he earns the property and the granparents get the appropriate care, everyones a winner. Seriously though it is a sad state of affairs, it makes you think why bother owning your own home in the long run.
04 October 2006, 10:17 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Where age and treachery reins over youthful exuberance
Posts: 5,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by davegtt
...Seriously though it is a sad state of affairs, it makes you think why bother owning your own home in the long run.
The only way around paying TWICE for your own health care (ie once while your working and paying tax and NI etc and then again with your own cash when you need the actual care) is to pi55 it all away while you're younger.
What a fine example that is for our youth of today
Richard.
05 October 2006, 07:14 AM
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hutton_d
Are you just stupid or still trying to wind people up? Tne situation is that these 'persons' HAVE paid for their care - because that's what Ni is and they have paid it all their life. What is PLAIN WRONG is for the government extracting even more money off of them for care AFTER they have been paying for such care all of their lives!
Dave
Dave
05 October 2006, 07:44 AM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree R32 and Leslie, just because you may have saved a few bob then the state expects to take it to pay for your existance in old age if you are in any way disabled, yes you are paying twice, which can't be right. Nobody has left me anything either, but I do have a nice house which I saved, scrimped to buy (still buying) to leave to my offspring. Okay, I do have a good job, again I studied, worked (working) long hours to attain that.
I think pslewis is winding everyone up again (as I have mentioned in other threads). If he hasn't got anything to leave any dependents then I can understand a little his jealous, poisonous, bent, socialist diatribe. If he hasn't got any dependents then I feel a little sorry for him.
I think pslewis is winding everyone up again (as I have mentioned in other threads). If he hasn't got anything to leave any dependents then I can understand a little his jealous, poisonous, bent, socialist diatribe. If he hasn't got any dependents then I feel a little sorry for him.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post