To consider the Conservatives' manifesto pretty decent on the whole?

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Pretty decent in terms in principles, that is ... as so often with manifestos it's too thin on costings

Main points here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

Full version here: www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Sorry, citroen, I cross posted with you ...

On a personal level I agree about accepting the need to pay for your own care in old age if you can afford it, but my ex MIL - always the most selfish of people - unfortunately didn't feel that way; the concept that she might have done something for herself, rather than commanding it from others, simply wouldn't have entered her mind

To answer your question, though, the specialist solicitor who dealt with this explained that assets given away in a will - and obviously following a death - are exempt from the "deprivation of assets" regulations, providing the necessary trusts, etc, have been properly drawn up

Don't worry by the time May implements the reforms, about 2 years, if at all, the Tories will not put in any more money into social care as in the last budget, and lots and lots of people will die due to lack of care thus saving a Conservative government billions if pounds. And it just shows by some posts the lengths people will go to try and avoid paying for care just to make sure the moneys kept in the family. Oh I do love the caring nurturing Tory society.

cit, the rules are never very clear but the will point sounds right to me. It is actually common for perfectly good reasons for people to leave all their assets to their chidlren with a life interest for the spouse particularly where the spouse is a younger second wife. The husband wants his children to inherit all his money accumulated before he married the younger wife but he wants to ensure she is housed for her natural life.

The current deprivation of assets rule does not have a time period as far as I know. I was thinking about it recently when I gave the older children some money for housing. I will probably not need care for about 30 years so am hoping that won't be counted as deprivation of assets and that the currently 7 year rule for inheritance tax (if you die within 7 years no IHT) will not apply either but we shall see.

My father had to pay £130k in his last year for dementia care in his own house which h e had to arrange. I don't remember even then there being any suggestion the state would provide it. He needed someone home all night and then 2 people during the day by the end. A full time caer home would probably have been more like £45k but he was very keen to die in and be nursed in his own house. He died just as his savings were exhausted although he could have then done equity release (house in the NE though so not like a London home with huge equity)

How are they supposed to do that Puzzled. On £62 a week Carers Allowance.

Im sorry but i think carers are really going to have to consider downing tools if this is going to be the attitude.

Mind you the attitudes towards carers have always stunk. Same as the attitudes towards the disabled.

Is anyone going to address the role the housing crisis plays in all of this?

Ideas?

Helena I can't comment on other areas of course, but round here there are some excellent, free advice centres which will help with exactly this sort of thing - though I appreciate that even getting to them isn't always easy for someone with caring responsibilities

And I definitely agree with you about the general attitude to carers; too often they're "patted on the head", told what a wonderful job they're all doing and then - platitudes over - simply abandoned to get on with it

Puzzledandpissedoff
My parents have recently did this
There house is worth about £400,000 ( they bought it for £8000. )
There wills are set up with split 50 /50 tenancy of the house so that they can leave it to whoever they want each plus a life time interest for the surving spouse to stay in the house
I suppose in this case they could quite legally leave £100'000 each as an inheritance/. family as there house is not joint tennants but tennants in common so each parents half of the house is seen as separate for a financial Assement of that makes senses

Should have said that they have mirror wills leaving it to my sister and myself
They actually did this with in mind of the recent rules where if one goes into care after the other spouses death there is only half a house for the council to pursue as legally they would only own half a house as the other half is in trust for my sister and myself
If they hadn't did this then the council could take the whole house
It cost around £350 including the splitting the tenancy .

Interesting point about the "£100k each" under the tenants in common/joint tenancy thing, Magpie - I confess I hadn't thought of that, but then I'm no expert in this area

Perhaps, just sometimes, these solicitors earn their fees in knowing all the ins and outs of the subject ...

PuzzledandPissedOff
It's very common to do although not that well known about
Generally it's done to protect the money going out of the family in case of re marriages
But it's also done to avoid the whole house being taken for care home fees at present
In some cases because the trustee refuse to sell there half of the house the LA give up enforcing it ( well in my part of the country they do)
Half a house can't be sold and is worth nothing so it makes sense but at the very worse case you would be able to save at least half of the house or protect £100,000 for each parent

Because it seems that what is developing is almost this "lottery" type of situation...where everything hinges on when nanna dies.

The milliband family did something similar (remember you can also vary wills after death if all the family agree) as did my father - my mother's will was varied (and they had already severed the joint tenancy of the house) and her half of the house left to us (we are not talking big sums) due to how the inheritance tax threhold worked then. There have been loads of changes so it makes sense for people who have a valuable asset like a house to spend a tiny bit of the equity in it in getting a will drawn up. If but only if you are happy that tax avoidance (within the law) and tax planning is fine. I think it's fine. It's about caring fro your family and heirs. Some people think it's morally pernicious to organise your affairs within the law to pay less tax nad receive more benefits - another debate entirely.

In our case that will change whilst my father still had capacity mitigated but did not entirely remove the effects of what we saw as the financial elder abuse of him by a carer a few years on when the dementia was worse.

I agree Janet
It makes sense that if you have a valuable assess for the sake of a few hundred pounds to protect it if you can .
Splitting the tenancy & mirror wills / life trusts make perfect sense
If the goverment allow you to keep £100, 000 pounds of your asset it makes sense to split like my parents have and leave £100. 000 each
If it's legal ( which it is ) then why not take advantage of it .

puzzled the whole thing about trusts and avoiding eventual care fees (the deprivation of assets thing) or IHT...if you can avoid one, I doubt you can avoid the other. Assets held in trust (which may not have been previously) are now considered part of an estate for inheritance tax, and if you want to keep changing your wills and disbursements in line with every HMRC legislative change, the legal fees surely mount up. The essential intention of this law - wealthier people pay more for their care - should be considered really carefully in terms of setting up tax/care avoidance type trusts because it's probably only the start in terms of assessment of assets.

In 2015, when the Labour Party suggested a 15% surcharge on estates over 325K to pay for social care, it was called a 'secret tax bombshell' by Jeremy Hunt. For an individual estate on the threshold limit, the tax raised wouldn't even cover a year of care in a residential nursing home for someone with dementia. The lack of a cap on care is surely going to worry very many older people.

So if we have a child looking after an aged parent in a house worth £1m. That parent dies so are we really saying that the child has the right to stay in the house, do they then pass it onto their children, what about step children, people who aren't married and so it goes on.

Realistically the IT threshold is there for a reason. Otherwise let me go and live with my DH as a carer. When he passes then I am 'entitled' to that house. I could even claim to have split from my husband and then when the house is mine, surprisingly come back together again. Same scenario with my DM (they are divorced btw)

See that you are all so willing to take responsibility in paying your own care costs even when you can all clearly afford it. What a lovely attitude to have!

So if we have a child looking after an aged parent in a house worth £1m

Well I was thinking that if we had a sensible housing programme, one where:

• younger people could afford to own a home
• we had adequate social housing, and
• quality places for the elderly

That this situation would improve greatly. For some reason, however, no one is picking up on this.

It seems like this - lower mortgages and rents - would free up a lot of capital to be set aside for retirement and care and things.

Sosteneuto I think it is a runner. It won't go anywhere near all the other social problems a Tory government will create now (or for the very long term...boundary changes proposed also). But only because she is likely to get a landslide could she attempt something like this. Traditional Tories must be super confused with this Nick Timothy, sorry, Theresa May manifesto. Cap on energy? Marxist according to Cameron, now Tory policy.. etc etc etc

I think lots of people are confused....

order-order.com/2017/05/19/jez-not-understand-tory-social-care-policy/

Two4One2017

Why doesn't that suprise me

Well I did say IF May implements it. The real worry is that by saying she will reform social care she will not put anymore funds into it in the meanwhile. She has already devolved to councils the responsibility wholly in funding social care and cut the amount necessary to do so which she gives them. I suppose it is a given she will win which breaks my heart. Democracy is going down the drain as there possibly won't be a viable opposition and things are going to get so tough for us at the bottom of society. (Frown).

Are you (or Guido) confused about the word cap? My understanding of that quote is that he is saying that if you have 100k you are completely on your own with regard to the provision of old age care but that 100k doesn't actually go anywhere near end-of-life costs for nursing home fees should you have dementia, for example. Which bit is confusing for you?

Are you (or Guido) confused about the word cap? My understanding of that quote is that he is saying that if you have 100k you are completely on your own with regard to the provision of old age care but that 100k doesn't actually go anywhere near end-of-life costs for nursing home fees should you have dementia, for example. Which bit is confusing for you?

Apart from that isn't what he has said at all.

“What the Conservatives are doing is to put a £100,000 cap on social care which actually goes nowhere near meeting the needs of somebody with extreme conditions can easily spend £50,000 a year on their care. It’s completely unrealistic, what they’re doing. We will make sure social care is properly funded.”

^ this is the quote

You are keeping the 100k not spending it.