What's wrong with selling a house you don't live in?

[Kendodd]

On the back of the NI increase.
If an elderly person living alone moves into a care home, well, why wouldn't they sell their house anyway? They're not going to be going back to live there, the house would be sitting empty and we don't have enough houses for people to live in. The elderly person would then also have a huge amount of money to supplement their income in their last few years. As far as I can see the benefits for everyone far outweigh any reasons for keeping the house.

For what it's worth, I don't think there should have been an NI rise or people paying a fortune for their own care. I think inheritance tax should have been increased instead. I don't get the outrage about selling houses nobody lives in though.

@LegendaryReady

Arguably those who frittered it all will have paid a lot more tax. Lots of tax on beer and fags.

Yep VAT is a regressive tax so anyone on too low a wage to have saved much will have paid a disproportionately high %if their income in tax. There is a log of cognitive dissonance that many people now, when as a society we are materially better off than we have been, are complaining that they are on their uppers and rely on their parents but at the same time condition people on historically lower standards of living as scroungers if they didn't earn enough to save for a 20 -30 year retirement.

I think I would rather the house prices were lower anyway. Not anyone's fault they are so stupidly high

Well if you choose to rent you don’t own that property so don’t have an asset!

Right and you really think that was their choice do you?
So the cleaner mopping hospital floors all day barely making ends meet, decided, well I could buy a house for myself and my children to live in but no, I think I'll keep paying £££ to live in this shithole instead.
Your contempt for the poor is shocking. Did you know we have more food banks in this country than Macdonald's? I suppose you think all those people should just buy a house. Next time you walk past a homeless person, well, they should just buy a house, problem solved.

:@Kendodd, what's your answer to the fact that self funders subsidise those getting it free? Do you think that's ok?

It's one thing to pay for your own care but to subsidise a lazy sod who has never worked a day in his life (as my Dad did) and has lived off the state doesn't sit well with me.

When my grandad was no longer conscious and no longer able to swallow food, my grandmother had to hire a lawyer to fight a feeding tube being inserted down his throat. He was completely gone mentally, but the law said we must keep him alive, and we will take his own money to do so.
The doctor present while the tube was inserted apologized to my dm and gm, "I'm sorry, this is so very wrong."

These are the kind of cases where I think many people would rather leave this world a few months earlier than a few months later. By that time my grandfather had no idea he was alive, never mind how much money was being taken from his account for the privilege.

*@Kendodd, what's your answer to the fact that self funders subsidise those getting it free? Do you think that's ok?

No I don't.
I think care should be 'free' for everyone and inheritance tax should be increased to pay for it. So everyone who doesn't pay IHT now pays say 10% of their estate in tax whether they had care or not.

I think the accommodation and food in care homes should be self funded (or HB funded) with a range of different homes to choose from according to means, from the Ritz to Premier Inn (if you like). Care should be funded by the state and I don't think the cost of this should fall on the young and the poor, inheritance tax should cover it.

@Kendodd

I think the accommodation and food in care homes should be self funded (or HB funded) with a range of different homes to choose from according to means, from the Ritz to Premier Inn (if you like). Care should be funded by the state and I don't think the cost of this should fall on the young and the poor, inheritance tax should cover it.

This is actually a fantastic idea.

They could convert some of the empty offices left due to covid.

I’ve always thought care homes would be better closer to city centres anyway, rather than stuck out in the suburbs where the residents will struggle to get to things.

do you think it's ok to scrounge off others?

I don't see people in need of care but unable to afford it as "scroungers".

@Nosferatussidebit

do you think it's ok to scrounge off others?

I don't see people in need of care but unable to afford it as "scroungers".

What about somebody whose house burns down but they have no insurance? Should the state buy them another house?

IMO there is no such thing as ‘my inheritance’ there are DM’s assets and of course they should cover her care if need be. I don’t understand the alternative viewpoint. It’s not your money.

@BasiliskStare

The one thing I would say is that free care for parents / elderly people is not going to be as nice as that you pay for. ( I believe - have investigated ) so it is not quite apples for apples .

Depends where you are. Where I work, the cheapest care homes are some of the better ones - they don't look as nice, the furniture is more worn and the decor dated, but the care is more personal and turnover of staff lower.

@Kendodd IHT is 40% and so you want it to be 50% on everything? What would happen would be elderly parents would give away all their assets to their children and then would be entirely dependent on their goodwill to help them, with no doubt many abuses along the way. And the Treasury would get none of it!

IHT starts at £325,000 - the price of a very modest home in the cheapest parts of the South East. There is a higher allowance for family homes but single parents or widows whose spouses died before the law changed don’t get all of that.

I do not feel contempt for the poor. I know of people on low wages who have saved to buy a home and others on more who have spent every penny. Yes, some people have no choice but most can improve their lot if they try.

You of course are wealthy, as you said. You can give all your money to charity if you wish, just don’t make the rest of us do it.

I am saving money for my kids to inherit. If the government up the inheritance tax I will spend it - all of it. I will retire early and float around the world for years as I am entitled to do with the money I have earned. I will be buggered if I'm going to pay for a care home and subsidise others with the money I am saving for my kids (which yes includes my house)
It's also interesting to note that half of these claimants are not old people. Why should my kids inheritance that I have worked my whole life for be spent to support working people
I already pay a very High amount of tax I don't use the state school or health system, when I retire I will have paid more than my fair share into the system with which I am fine, but I will not be taxed on the basis of decisions I have made to save money for my kids instead of spending it

The only way my kid will get to own a home where he was born and brought up is when I croak it.

What about somebody whose house burns down but they have no insurance? Should the state buy them another house?

How is that related to "scrounging". I think the state should place them in temporary emergency housing to allow them time to get themselves a rental. I certainly don't think they should be made street homeless and their children placed in to foster care until they sort out a home.

People saying that the free care isn't as good as if you pay, how can this be? Obviously if the home is 100% paying people only however from what we hear in the media and on here is that there are people paying different rates for the same home i.e. the private residents are subsidising the state residents. This seems very very unfair to me.

I have a question for those in the know - can the state actually take control of an elderly persons asset and sell their home without any referral to the family? e.g. in a situation where they believe the family aren't providing the care the person needs.

I have a question for those in the know - can the state actually take control of an elderly persons asset and sell their home without any referral to the family? e.g. in a situation where they believe the family aren't providing the care the person needs.

Not quite. It's a complicated legal issue but if the family don't have lasting power of attorney, the state (via social services) has the power to make all decisions about how a person's care needs are met. This may be by having carers in their own home or by placing them in a care home. If it is known that the person has savings and assets the local authority can take control of those under "client affairs", where a person is unable to manage their own finances and has no one else willing and suitable to do it for them via a guardianship. The local authority must use those finances in the clients "best interest" (which is to meet their care needs as assessed by the social worker) but cannot sell someone's home if the home is empty. They CAN and do put a "charge" against a property. This charge is basically a loan where the LA pays the care bill for the duration of the person's life and then recoups the loan on death when the estate is reconciled. The LA will receive the full value of the charge or the full value of the estate minus £14250 if the value of the estate is less than the charge (so if the LA has paid £80k in care costs, but the estate is only settled at £70k the LA would receive £70k minus. £14250 so £55750. £14250 is the current (pre law change) figure of inheritance. That money should be used for a funeral and any left is inheritance.

If a person has given someone power of attorney, the state does not take control of the finances, but the person with power of attorney is expected to act in the best interest of the person, which almost invariably to pay for the care they need. If they do not, the local authority can choose to petition the OPG to have the LPA removed, however this rarely happens. The other option is to provide the care, the LA pays and recoups the cost it after death from the estate. If the person with LPA refuses to allow the care to take place (because they want to protect the funds) then it becomes much more complicated. If the LPA is only for finances (there's 2 separate types of LPA - "health and welfare" & "finances") then the LPA can force care to be provided and recoup costs on death. If it's for both and care is refused it could become a safeguarding matter.

@whatthejiggeries

I am saving money for my kids to inherit. If the government up the inheritance tax I will spend it - all of it. I will retire early and float around the world for years as I am entitled to do with the money I have earned. I will be buggered if I'm going to pay for a care home and subsidise others with the money I am saving for my kids (which yes includes my house) It's also interesting to note that half of these claimants are not old people. Why should my kids inheritance that I have worked my whole life for be spent to support working people I already pay a very High amount of tax I don't use the state school or health system, when I retire I will have paid more than my fair share into the system with which I am fine, but I will not be taxed on the basis of decisions I have made to save money for my kids instead of spending it

If you genuinely have money just for an inheritance give it to them now. What's the point in them inheriting in their 60s ?

The average self funder in a standard care home is paying a 40% to 50% surcharge to subsidise state funded residents. That is pretty generous /punitive depending on your POV IMO.
The very rich aren't subsidising anyone. They are just paying for a high end hotel and care service that is not available to anyone else.

@whatthejiggeries just gift it to them when appropriate, as long as you do it 7 years before you die then no IHT will be due.

When my nan finally went into a home (with advanced dementia), my mum and aunt rented her house out. The rental income, coupled with my nan's (and long dead grandfathers) fancy pants pensions paid for her care. The tenant actually ended up buying the house when she died after a couple of years. I appreciate this is an ideal situation and not everyone is lucky enough to be in it.

@Nosferatussidebit - thank you, that's really helpful and worrying. As far as I am aware my parents don't have LPA. My mother seems to believe that being married is enough, sigh.

[quote 2021Vision]@Nosferatussidebit - thank you, that's really helpful and worrying. As far as I am aware my parents don't have LPA. My mother seems to believe that being married is enough, sigh.[/quote]
It is not. Whilst family views are taken in to consideration, and given a significant weighting, ultimately Drs, social workers and other professionals will be the decision makers.

[quote elbea]@whatthejiggeries just gift it to them when appropriate, as long as you do it 7 years before you die then no IHT will be due.[/quote]
But deliberate deprivation of assets has no statute of limitations.