Avoid care home fees by divorcing!

[champchomp]

I know this sounds extreme but I’m thinking ahead. DH is a bit older than me and is having some health problems. We have no mortgage and he has a good pension and savings. I’ve seen instances where a spouse has entered a care home and the other one has struggled to pay the fees and had to sell up and use all the savings. Hypothetically speaking would divorcing and splitting assets protect some of the money and property. I know anything could happen between now and if my husband needs care but it worries me and we have children we would like to help financially if need be. I’d always be there for DH no matter what and visa versa. But financially does it make sense to financially separate/divorce if care is needed for either of us?

So don't go into a care home then. Find someone to look after you/your partner for nothing. Or just go without care, starve/sit in your own mess/rot quietly until you die?

Care homes cost because care costs. Do you think they're somehow exempt from overheads? That people work in them for nothing?

"I’ve seen instances where a spouse has entered a care home and the other one has struggled to pay the fees and had to sell up and use all the savings".

Have you really seen this OP? Or have you just read someone on MN making it up?

This in spades.
I'm not paying your or your husbands care home fees (as a taxpayer) while you hide your money from the local authorities.
It would be rightly seen as deprivation of assets.
£££ of unearned equity growth over and above what you have paid on the mortgage. This is what should fund old age care. That and your pensions
Astounding attitude!

He doesn’t need to go into a care home. I don’t know anyone who is in a care home or been in one. If his needs are more complex than simply being old then you could pay for people to come to your home.

Your options are - pay for the care home fees or keep your husband at home. I also pay tax and don’t want to pay for your husband’s fees.

My mum was recently paying £114,000 a year for her care home fees and on top of that some of her estate will be subjected to 40% inheritance tax. Yes it sucks OP, especially as my mum was paying higher rate income tax for a lot of her life meaning that, plus the inheritance tax means some of her income will ultimately have been subjected to 80% taxation.

No this doesn't seem particularly fair, but your solution of trying to wriggle out of you or your husband's personal obligations so as the rest of society picks up the bill while your kids benefit isn't reasonable either. If you really want your kids to benefit give them some of your money now.

No you really really DO NOT get the same care. Your ignorance is staggering OP. I have worked as a Community Nurse for 30 years and have been into the very best care homes and the non top up state funded care homes. 99.9% of those homes I would not put my dog into yet alone my loved one I cannot tell you how depressing they can be, but hey it is free right.

You would be depriving yourself of good care but it sounds like that is exactly what you deserve given your attitude!

They didn’t need to do this. The home isn’t taken into account if your spouse is still living in it.

It’s even more unfair than that OP as self funding residents pay up to 50% more than the state funded residents in order to make up the shortfall the LA will pay the care home!

So you’re happy to be placed in a shitty care home that the tax payer - which includes your adult children - have to pay for just so you can leave your dc money?

As others have said you are still living in the house it's not included in the financial assessment. With regard to savings only accounts in the carees name and half of joint accounts are included.
BUT once you are reliant on LA finding you are seriously restricting your choices. Not only is your choice of where to go restricted but, even more importantly, your choice of when to go is restricted. The LA won't pay for more than 4 visits a day until there is no other option than a care home and, believe me, that's a very low bar. You could be alone at home for 22 hours a day, sitting in a wet incontinence pad with just the drink and sandwich prepared by the last lot of carers available and that's still ok. So be careful what you plan for

Wrong. The 7 year rule is for inheritance tax. Deprivation of assets can go back many years. Your colleagues are misguided fools.

Whenever this type of topic comes up, the same naivety from some people is also expressed - the self-funders go to the most wonderful homes, with the best care money can provide. The state funders (according to some) all go to the crappy homes, the homes that self-funders don’t go to.

That isn’t what happens. Wake up!

"Whether you pay for care or the council you get the same care"

Sadly, you really don't.

The quality of care varies enormously and when social services are making the choice they do it based on cost.

What's the absolute least they can spend that will, on paper, meet the most important of your needs. Probably.

Whereas if you are paying for your own care, you have a lot more choice and can access better homes.

So yes, do the fiddling needed to hang on to your cash but do it knowing your partner (and eventually you too) will likely get the grotty, understaffed home with fewer facilities.

I would rather my parents spend their most vulnerable years in the best home their money can buy and have no inheritance than have the la put them in the cheapest one around so i get cash in my pocket and im sure your children would feel the same.

Bloody boomers

Tell us again why everyone else should have to pay for your care so that your children can get their hands on your savings? Local authorities, who pay the care home fees, are pretty much bankrupt in no small part because of people like you, but hey that’s ok! As long as your children get a nice inheritance that they’ve done absolutely nothing to earn that’s ok!
You do realise that if your scam works and your DH does need care that’s paid for by the state, all his income (apart from £30 a week) will be taken towards his fees?

Ha. X posted.
In my experience it really is.
I used to work in the care sector and decisions absolutely are made based on cost.
I have had relatives go into care homes and there's a big difference between the ones the self funders were in and the ones the la funded ones were in.

Statistically, most people who have lived on benefits most of their life have a shorter life span than those who have earned a decent living. So you don’t need to have the vapours about the tax payers paying care home fees for benefit scroungers - they’ll be long dead and not need a care home. 🙄

@TheMorgenmuffelCan I ask, out of interest, what the main differences are ? I used to work in care but only ever in the private places and I’ve always wondered when I see it mentioned on here about the LA ones what’s so different about them ?

Do you realise the economics of buying in bulk? LAs fund a large number of care home places therefore they receive a discount. Private individuals purchase 1 place, therefore pay a premium. In addition, LAs pay for some care homes even though they may not be full all the time.

You’ve clearly had a limited experience in your work.

Most care homes (9,016, 59.7%) had a mix of self- and state-funded residents

Source:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/socialcare/articles/carehomesandestimatingtheselffundingpopulationengland/2022to2023

You're entitled to your opinion on how things ought to be, but that doesn't alter how things actually are. Most people want to leave what they've saved for their kids etc - you're not a special case or exempt from the rules. The good news is that they can't take the house from one spouse while the other is in care, and if you're tenants in common rather than joint tenants, you can leave your half of your house to who you choose and it can't be taken into account in relation to the other person's care. You can also keep savings and any other assets separate if you want.

Look on the bright side - only about ten per cent of older people ever do go into residential care. It quite likely won't be necessary for either of you.

This! So your children would pay an increased IHT rate as from what you’ve said, it appears your estate would likely hit the threshold. Plus their “working” taxes will likely increase as we have an aging society anyway, and if those who can afford their own care find ways not to, the increased burden will fall on taxpayers.

You and your children care for your DH to save on care home costs or you pay for it yourselves.

You seems quite ignorant on care homes. There is a massive difference in quality with the state funded care homes and the private ones. My neighbour has moved into a private care home costing over £100,000 per year. Next door to the private home is a state funded home which has a terrible reputation, bad quality of staff, shit food, below average rooms with little comfort, residents left in bed far too long because it's easier to manage. I couldn't send my relative to the state funded care home whilst living it up on money I'd squirrelled away.

Perhaps the children might benefit from this type of legal move - its probably better not to tell other not to do something when you might be incorrect and only bases this information on one tiny fragment of information rather than a bigger picture