To think capital gains tax on main home to pay for social care is fair(35 Posts)
I mean it has to come from somewhere, seems pretty fair to tax the vast amounts property has made for the people that are now coming up to need care in a massively underfunded system.
Some local authorities already take a charge over the property to recoup costs when it is sold. That seems fairer, or you can take out insurance to meet care costs.
I can't read after the first paragraph as I don't have a subscription. So what are the proposals re. capital gains tax?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
This is a tough one for me. I know I should pay for my own care as I get old. However I want to leave my house to my kids.
The thought of the government stealing from my estate doesn't sit well with me. But on the other hand, who will pay for any care that I may need as I get old?
Right now I hope to have a long and happy retirement and then die before I need to go into a home
I can't read the article after the first paragraph. However where i live, anyone with assets over a set limit (its pretty low as far as I can remember about 23k) has to pay either the whole cost of the social care or contribute towards it. This is nothing new has been done for donkeys years. If they were waiting to sell their property to pay care fees and died, the money would be paid out of their estate - again nothing new.
This doesn't just effect rich people with lots of property and money, this applies to everyone who owns their house (as most are worth over the limit)
Kursk I think the way around it is to sign your house over to your kids then it can't be used for your care but that means that if you need care then everything that you get is taken off you and your family have to pay the top up.
I take the attitude that my Mums house is hers for as long as she needs it, even if that need is for it to be sold to pay for her care.
I ddon't my expect to inherit anything ( although I probably will) and although I wouid like a couple of sentimental things anything else would be a bonus.
I don't agree with deliberate deprivation of assets and the Councils are getting very wise to it now
Shoot - you have to sign it over 7 years before you need to go into care or need assistance for it to work
I think it's less than that Boo. Dh's mother is currently trying to hide her half of the house (the other is in an IIP trust, and ultimately belongs to dh and his sibling) in a will/probate trust to avoid care fees. She needs dh and his sibling to sign paperwork to this effect as it will affect our trust. We are not playing. I was told by her LA it was 4 years.
Care home fees are ridiculously expensive.
I do find it sad when one person is having to use their life savings and property to pay for their care, every thing they have worked hard for throughout their life. Then the person in the room next door who has no assets gets the same care for nothing. I know the money has to come from somewhere, but this does not sit right with me.
Personally I think this should apply to prisoners. Totally off track I know! But if you get convicted of a crime and put in prison then any assets you have should pay towards your time there.
That's why I liked the "death tax" which was killed off by a combination of cowardice and the tabloid press. Everyone who leaves money pays a lump sum on death, but in return you know you're not going to have to pay out your entire estate on a decade's residential care. It levels the playing field between people who need different levels of care in old age. God knows why the Tories sabotaged it first time around, but it looks like it might be on its way back if Theresa grows some backbone.
It does seem theoretcially reasonable that you should pay for your own care while you are alive, but the return should be that there is no inheritence tax when you die and you can pass on your remaining assets to whomever you like when you die.
But that makes it even more of a winner takes all game than it already is Shamoo. Get dementia and your beneficiaries lose everything. Get cancer and your beneficiaries keep 100%.
It's one of those thing where I do feel it's reasonable to pay for my own care I old age...I don't think my children have a right to inherit whilst someone else picks up the tab. But then I think how frugal we are as a family compared to some of our friends and can't help thinking without the incentive of passing on the fruits of my labours to the children that I might as well spend a lot more on holiday
People in houses now who bought years ago, particularly in the SE, have made an absolute fortune on their home. They might have 'worked hard all their lives' but in my parents' road there are elderly Police officers, teachers, people who worked in banks, most of whom had SAHM/one income. To buy one of those houses now, you would have to be a millionaire or two very well paid workers. They didn't 'earn' that money, it was a fluke of the market. They certainly wouldn't be able to have the same house now.
The money for their care has to come from somewhere. Why should I get 100Ks instead of that money going to fund their expensive care if they need it? Just because my parents lucked out on their house? It's like musical chairs but with people's futures.
You can't argue you want equality in provision of free care but not equality with intergenerational mobility.
I understand alll the arguments, many of which have been well put here, and just can't make up my mind on where I stand. I'll read later posts with interest.
I do think that people need to take more responsibility for their old age - these financial rules (or versions thereof) were around when my grandmother was ailing in 1992/3 so they shouldn't be a surprise to today's 80 year olds.
It seems to discriminate against mental illness. A dementia sufferer definitely can't live at home with drop-in carers until they die. A cancer or heart patient usually can. It's a lottery.
A dementia sufferer definitely can't live at home with drop-in carers until they die. Dh's Granny did; she died in 2007 at 98, and didn't move out of her marital home. The carers went in 4 times a day.
That reassures me scaryteacher. Thanks. I think Mum is developing it.
Scaryteacher; Can you take out insurance to cover care home? I never knew?
If married or co habiting I do know that you can get a legal document drawn up to protect your half of the house so should one of you need care the other half are not homeless.
I am torn over this issue, part of me thinks that we should maybe stop sending aid to certain overseas projects (not all obvs) and create a UK elderly age care provision plan with that money, another part thinks that the UK is in dire straights and couldn't fund care homes etc.
What I do know is that we are treating the elderly, often life long tax payers very, very poorly.
I think a fair way to do it would be to take a proportion of assists but not all - that way people would contribute towards their own care but still have some money to pass on.
As a pp said, many of the current generation of pensioners have made a fortune on property due to vast rises in property value, as well as benefitting from generous pensions etc
I think many people who have seen their parents go through dimentia will be sending themselves off to dignatas rather than go through it themselves.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.