| Start new thread in this topic | Watch this thread | Flip this thread | Refresh the display |
This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has 10 messages.)
This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.
Start using Mumsnet PremiumPaying for social care. Would like clarification.
(10 Posts)Right, get the idea that care in old age will be paid for by the recipient leaving £100 in their estate. However, what happens to the husband or wife left in the home when that person dies? Is the house sold leaving the resident without a home? Emphasis has been made that the house need not be sold until the death occurs but there seems to be an assumption that person is on their own. Most houses are in joint names but can the Government swoop in to take their share thereby forcing the person left to sell with the result that there isn't enough capital to buy anything else let alone having to experience the distress that this would cause?
I'm confused too, about the difference between the current policy which strips you down to £23k ish and the new policy which leaves you £100k. Surely this is better?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
It sounds better. The £23k is really hard and needed some change. However, I would like to know about what happens when a death occurs In a joint partnership.
It's not better at all , homecare did not previously have to be paid for from the value of your home.
Any partner can stay in the home , however should they wish to downsize or move to be nearer to a real active for care they will no longer be able to.
I broadly agree too although again, I won't be voting Tory. My parents, like many live on a generous final salary pension, have shares in the public utilities when they were sold off and have two houses mortgage free. I doubt they paid £100k £100k for both those houses together, but they live in London so have increased massively in value. £100k would be enough to give my children a good start, as they are the ones who will likely never have a mortgage free home and leave university with massive levels of debt. I'd rather the state helped the young, who won't have pensions or homes to fall back on in their old age. It is a short-term probably one generation issue because of this.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I do think that there will very shortly be a slew of wealthy baby boomers carefully transferring their assets to their offspring with some kind of contractual obligation to look after the parents in a certain way to the end....
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
If a partner is left in the house will interest on the debt keep incurring after the recipient of the care has died? In which case the person left is being charged for his/her partner's care. Say the recipient of the care only lived for a year but the partner who is left continues to live for say another twenty. A relatively small proportion of the house value could grow to an enormous amount.
| Start new thread in this topic | Watch this thread | Flip this thread | Refresh the display |
This is page 1 of 1 (This thread has 10 messages.)
Join the discussion
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.
Join MumsnetAlready have a Mumsnet account? Log in
Compose Message
Please login first.