Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
There is not a single leader in this debate that is actually standing for these elections.
You'll be overjoyed to hear that Harvie is standing in Glasgow North. I hope your respect for him will now be suitably increased.
A green standing? That's a novelty.
I don't see you Tories complaining about UKIP standing a quarter of their 2015 Scottish candidates. Though I suppose it is pretty difficult to distinguish between the two parties now.
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
If a house is in joint names I don't see how the State claims more than half. If it is in the name of the ill party then presumably the £100K limit will apply.
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
It would be stupid if it is charged on the death of one spouse, while the other is still living. How are they going to cough up the money?
There is not a single leader in this debate that is actually standing for these elections.
You'll be overjoyed to hear that Harvie is standing in Glasgow North. I hope your respect for him will now be suitably increased.
A green standing? That's a novelty.
I don't see you Tories complaining about UKIP standing a quarter of their 2015 Scottish candidates. Though I suppose it is pretty difficult to distinguish between the two parties now.
UKIP are a busted flush. Same can't be said for the Greens.
Anyone have any useful suggestions for what I can do with all these unwanted "Pull Out And Keep Souvenir Guides" for Pippa's bloody wedding that were in the papers today?
I'm using mine to line my bunnies' loo area in their hutch along with some copies of The Standard.
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
Is that in the policy somewhere? If so why don't they say "200k per couple". Sounds better.
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
So if the £190k house is in joint names they pay zero for care?
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
Is that in the policy somewhere? If so why don't they say "200k per couple". Sounds better.
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
A bit of recalibration needed, praps. These measures don't hit the rich at all, because anyone who can't fund this sort of expenditure from income or, worse comes to worst, by selling off some financial (i.e. non-house) assets, is by definition not rich - certainly not to the extent of tax exile.
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
It would be stupid if it is charged on the death of one spouse, while the other is still living. How are they going to cough up the money?
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
Listening to a few radio news reports today it sounded as if you will only be left with £100k if you need care - ie you would only be allowed to keep £100k irrespective of how much care you need.
It didn't actuially say that if you have a £300k house you would only keep £100k if your care bill is £200k.
The above may sound blindingly obvious to people on here but not necessarily to someone just hearing brief news headlines.
So I suspect the biggest problem for May is that people are now fearing a far, far worse financial outcome than is remotely likely given their own actual circumstances.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
I've known that for most of my life.
I'd love the UK to push through massive cuts in public spending and tax, and regulation.
But, I accept the British people are entitled to opt for May's soft social democracy, if that's what they prefer.
Prefer... to what, precisely? What plausible alternative have they got? It's hard to say they've opted for it when the only options (realisticaly, unless anyone thinks the LDs, SNP, Greens, or whoever can win a majority, in which case I'd line up to lay that bet) are May or Corbyn.
There is not a single leader in this debate that is actually standing for these elections.
You'll be overjoyed to hear that Harvie is standing in Glasgow North. I hope your respect for him will now be suitably increased.
A green standing? That's a novelty.
I don't see you Tories complaining about UKIP standing a quarter of their 2015 Scottish candidates. Though I suppose it is pretty difficult to distinguish between the two parties now.
Not one of those candidates will save their deposit. Mind you, you can say the same about the Greens with the possible exception of Edinburgh North and Leith. But we can hope the same applies there.
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
The Tories are raising the threshold for the basic rate and higher rate and Osborne took up to £1 million of assets per estate out of IHT, reducing the subsidy for personal care to those with assets over £100k is hardly social democracy
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
Is that in the policy somewhere? If so why don't they say "200k per couple". Sounds better.
Indeed - if correct Con have made a massive presentational mistake - on top of the mistakes already discussed over the last couple of days.
Have posted on the last thread but will say this again. Is the policy for social care per person or per couple. If you have a couple who own a house worth £190K quite possible outside the south. Do they spilt the value per person so if one person needs social care their assets are less than£100K enabling them to free care In our case if one of us heaven forbid has to go into a home because of dementia instead of the fees kicking in at £23500 it would be £100K I know what I would prefer. Sorry for the double post
A very good question and it may well be nobody knows the answer.
Indeed there may not be an answer (as of now) - because the Con manifesto may not be clear on the issue.
If so, it would be further confirmation of how absurd a situation May has got herself into.
£100 k per person, not per couple.
It would be stupid if it is charged on the death of one spouse, while the other is still living. How are they going to cough up the money?
The Council will take a charge over the property.
Interested to see actually, what type of security interest.
My partner, she's raging about Arsenal's fifth place. But at least with Spurs & Crystal Palace they can claim (what's the opposite of provincial ?)ism.
Look on the bright side there still the FA Cup Final and then the Europa League next year where they might even progress beyond the group stage
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
Listening to a few radio news reports today it sounded as if you will only be left with £100k if you need care - ie you would only be allowed to keep £100k irrespective of how much care you need.
It didn't actuially say that if you have a £300k house you would only keep £100k if your care bill is £200k.
The above may sound blindingly obvious to people on here but not necessarily to someone just hearing brief news headlines.
So I suspect the biggest problem for May is that people are now fearing a far, far worse financial outcome than is remotely likely given their own actual circumstances.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
I've known that for most of my life.
I'd love the UK to push through massive cuts in public spending and tax, and regulation.
But, I accept the British people are entitled to opt for May's soft social democracy, if that's what they prefer.
Prefer... to what, precisely? What plausible alternative have they got? It's hard to say they've opted for it when the only options (realisticaly, unless anyone thinks the LDs, SNP, Greens, or whoever can win a majority, in which case I'd line up to lay that bet) are May or Corbyn.
I'd like to believe otherwise, but I don't think the British will vote for a party committed to making the UK the Singapore of Europe. We can maybe get public spending down to a third of GDP, but no lower.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
Listening to a few radio news reports today it sounded as if you will only be left with £100k if you need care - ie you would only be allowed to keep £100k irrespective of how much care you need.
It didn't actuially say that if you have a £300k house you would only keep £100k if your care bill is £200k.
The above may sound blindingly obvious to people on here but not necessarily to someone just hearing brief news headlines.
So I suspect the biggest problem for May is that people are now fearing a far, far worse financial outcome than is remotely likely given their own actual circumstances.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Well they will obviously vary depending upon how much care you receive.
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
A bit of recalibration needed, praps. These measures don't hit the rich at all, because anyone who can't fund this sort of expenditure from income or, worse comes to worst, by selling off some financial (i.e. non-house) assets, is by definition not rich - certainly not to the extent of tax exile.
The proposed measures don't hit anyone, as far as I can tell. They just remind them that the current system is "unfair", that the Government is to blame (as usual) and that the manifesto proposals just tinker about with thresholds without actually addressing the problem as viewed from Acacia Avenue. It's a totally unreasonable position so the best way to resolve it would be a referendum.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
I've known that for most of my life.
I'd love the UK to push through massive cuts in public spending and tax, and regulation.
But, I accept the British people are entitled to opt for May's soft social democracy, if that's what they prefer.
Prefer... to what, precisely? What plausible alternative have they got? It's hard to say they've opted for it when the only options (realisticaly, unless anyone thinks the LDs, SNP, Greens, or whoever can win a majority, in which case I'd line up to lay that bet) are May or Corbyn.
I'd like to believe otherwise, but I don't think the British will vote for a party committed to making the UK the Singapore of Europe. We can maybe get public spending down to a third of GDP, but no lower.
Even spending just a third of GDP would be less than Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, Japan and every European nation bar Switzerland and Albania and Macedonia and Georgia spends and is unlikely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Well they will obviously vary depending upon how much care you receive.
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
At today's prices. Once you have sold your property, future price rises are no good to you.
Im loving the panic attacks from PB tories over the manifesto. May is going to win on the promise of statist social democratic economic policies. Your kids inheritance is going to be raided. And - other than Tax exile- you have nowhere to go.
Now you all know how it feels to be in an elite out of touch minority! Suck it up!
I've known that for most of my life.
I'd love the UK to push through massive cuts in public spending and tax, and regulation.
But, I accept the British people are entitled to opt for May's soft social democracy, if that's what they prefer.
Prefer... to what, precisely? What plausible alternative have they got? It's hard to say they've opted for it when the only options (realisticaly, unless anyone thinks the LDs, SNP, Greens, or whoever can win a majority, in which case I'd line up to lay that bet) are May or Corbyn.
I'd like to believe otherwise, but I don't think the British will vote for a party committed to making the UK the Singapore of Europe. We can maybe get public spending down to a third of GDP, but no lower.
It's unfortunate that you'll never get to see whether or not you're right. Polling only ever gives us "expressed preferences" rather than "revealed preferences" in economist speak (as Labour found out in 1992 when the expressed preferences of "yes, we'll pay more tax for more services" turned into the revealed preferences of "Actually, no we won't" when push came to shove.
We have the choices of Not-Corbyn or Not-May. It's hard to discern much useful real information from that choice.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Yeah, just hand over the keys to your kids. Where are you going to live? Dodging this stuff isn't as easy as people think.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
Listening to a few radio news reports today it sounded as if you will only be left with £100k if you need care - ie you would only be allowed to keep £100k irrespective of how much care you need.
It didn't actuially say that if you have a £300k house you would only keep £100k if your care bill is £200k.
The above may sound blindingly obvious to people on here but not necessarily to someone just hearing brief news headlines.
So I suspect the biggest problem for May is that people are now fearing a far, far worse financial outcome than is remotely likely given their own actual circumstances.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
You could argue that doing it when you're averaging about 46% in the polls is the best time to do it.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
I don't know what you mean.
The rich will pay the cost of care. Certainly they are better able to finance this from liquid assets, like cash, shares, and pensions. So this change is largely irrelevant for them.
For everyone else it's that balance between paying more for care if you own your own home o the one hand with the protection from needing to sell it on the other.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
It would be more accurate to say the rich and well off will pay, but they have sufficient means to pay it out of income, not capital.
One would have to be a fool to give away one's principal assets, just to avoid a charge.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Well they will obviously vary depending upon how much care you receive.
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
At today's prices. Once you have sold your property, future price rises are no good to you.
Three days later and we are still talking about the dementia tax, and WFA.
This is BAD.
And it apppears it was done without briefing the cabinet and the Downing Street policy chief advised against it. May puts far too much trust in Timothy and Hill and they don't seem up to it.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Same could be said for IHT, yet no one talks about binning it
Preston are, at best, the second team of Lancashire. The mighty clarets have their rightful place at the top of Lancashire football back!
Liverpool? Everton? ManU? City? For a Lancastrian you have surprisingly limited ambitions.
None of them have been in Lancs since the 1960s.
It's longer ago that that if you think Lancashire is defined by local government boundaries because Liverpool and Manchester were county boroughs since 1889. But they didn't deny being in Lancashire. The County Palatine goes back into the mists of time.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Yeah, just hand over the keys to your kids. Where are you going to live? Dodging this stuff isn't as easy as people think.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is. .
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Let me put myself up as a nasty Tax planner.
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
Three days later and we are still talking about the dementia tax, and WFA.
This is BAD.
But the manifestos of the other parties are gesture politics this time out. The Social Care proposals are important because the next government will implement either this proposal or something similar. Of course it gets more attention.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Yeah, just hand over the keys to your kids. Where are you going to live? Dodging this stuff isn't as easy as people think.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Yeah, just hand over the keys to your kids. Where are you going to live? Dodging this stuff isn't as easy as people think.
Stay in the house and rent it back from them
With what money? You can easily end up being done for fraud if it's money from your kids.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Well they will obviously vary depending upon how much care you receive.
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
At today's prices. Once you have sold your property, future price rises are no good to you.
Why would you sell your property?
The in-home care costs are only paid after death.
Doesn't this exacerbate the "housing crisis". Granny's three-bedroom house lies empty for 10 years while she wastes away in a "home".
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is. .
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Let me put myself up as a nasty Tax planner.
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
No problems. You can do the same to avoid IHT. Defeats the whole point of it though..
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
This is complete nonsense.
Go to a care home, see if you can get a Council funded place, then come back and tell us what you find. Tell us what the care home is like.
If you have divested yourself of all your assets, you’ll be getting a very basic place at a pretty indifferent care home, or worse.
When you read stories of care home assistants taunting and making fun of the residents, do you think this is well-off people suffering such abuse in a shitty home ?
Hi all, long time lurker but have to share that Betsafe have Labour vote share 35-40% at 25-1, compared to betfair which can be laid at 6.4 if anyone interested. Personally doubt they will get 35% plus but who knows at the moment!
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Well they will obviously vary depending upon how much care you receive.
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
At today's prices. Once you have sold your property, future price rises are no good to you.
Why would you sell your property?
The in-home care costs are only paid after death.
So, if you live many years, the maximum inheritance for your children is £100k, am I right ?
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Yeah, just hand over the keys to your kids. Where are you going to live? Dodging this stuff isn't as easy as people think.
Stay in the house and rent it back from them
With what money? You can easily end up being done for fraud if it's money from your kids.
If you are sensible and your assets are well over the £100k threshold you will downsize in your mid seventies to say a flat or bungalow and give the assets released from the sale of the family home to your children if you really want them to have a sizeable inheritance and are concerned that will not happen if you get dementia and have to pay social care costs
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Same could be said for IHT, yet no one talks about binning it
Osborne did effectively bin IHT for everyone with assets under £1 million last April
Three days later and we are still talking about the dementia tax, and WFA.
This is BAD.
We ?? maybe, (I am not)... but are the voters? Anecdotal evidence on here suggests not.
As I said, it is 9th most read thing on BBC, less interesting than "Jogging Trudeau photobombs prom picture" at 7 and "Whales die off coast of East Anglia" at 8 and MUCH less interesting than Jezza the terrorist at no. 1. Arlene Foster is having a go at him in a speech in London tomorrow.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Well they will obviously vary depending upon how much care you receive.
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
At today's prices. Once you have sold your property, future price rises are no good to you.
Why would you sell your property?
The in-home care costs are only paid after death.
So, if you live many years, the maximum inheritance for your children is £100k, am I right ?
Yes, but surely that's at the top end of the spectrum?
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Same could be said for IHT, yet no one talks about binning it
Osborne did effectively bin IHT for everyone with assets under £1 million last April
Fair point. Why not abolish it entirely, given how easy it is to avoid?
So, if you live many years, the maximum inheritance for your children is £100k, am I right ?
No, that is only so if your non-house assets and the equity in your house over £100 000 are less than the total care fees. £100k is a minimum not a maximum.
Three days later and we are still talking about the dementia tax, and WFA.
This is BAD.
We ?? maybe, (I am not)... but are the voters? Anecdotal evidence on here suggests not.
As I said, it is 9th most read thing on BBC, less interesting than "Jogging Trudeau photobombs prom picture" at 7 and "Whales die off coast of East Anglia" at 8 and MUCH less interesting than Jezza the terrorist at no. 1. Arlene Foster is having a go at him in a speech in London tomorrow.
The Fightback Starts Here.
Arlene Foster ? DUP ? For God's sake. She , the one, whose capability in maths is even lower than Abbott's. Gave away £0.5bn in a tiny province.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is. .
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Let me put myself up as a nasty Tax planner.
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
The main flaw (to my mind) is that you lose what is yours. When you go into a care home, the local authority will look for the cheapest option; you'll have no say in it. Your children will have no legal obligation to assist you (although, they may choose to). You lose your independence, and become dependent on the goodwill of others.
If you think that your heirs will never betray you, I could show you some of my files.
The very Rich and the well off Middle classes will pay virtually nothing.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
Same could be said for IHT, yet no one talks about binning it
Osborne did effectively bin IHT for everyone with assets under £1 million last April
Have posted before but the £1m only comes in from 2020.
It's £850k today, £900k from April 2018, £950k from April 2019, £1m from April 2020.
Hi all, long time lurker but have to share that Betsafe have Labour vote share 35-40% at 25-1, compared to betfair which can be laid at 6.4 if anyone interested. Personally doubt they will get 35% plus but who knows at the moment!
Here is a fairly typical review of Betsafe:
"I was scammed into their free "10 …
I was scammed into their free "10 bonus" offer. After depositing £10 - I then happily proceeding betting and turned my £10 into roughly £150.
After not being able to cash out, I was then told by an advisor i had to bet an incredible £1000!! before I could reach the 'bonus limit' and cash out.
Horrendous scam - avoid this site at all costs. If that isn't encouraging a gambling addiction I don't know what is."
Tories should either announce a "calibration" which is actually a U-turn, or throw the world's biggest cat on the table. Now. Do it now. Every hour this story continues, more people hear about it, and more damage is done.
The main BBC headline is Trump telling Muslims to drive extremists out, though there is a story on Damian Green saying £100 000 'is a reasonable inheritance to have' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/0
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair, firstly because it is directed against one particular segment of society, namely those who are unfortunate to die, often slowly and therefore in an expensive way requiring considerable care. Secondly it is targeted not at the rich, no not by any means means. Instead it is targeted at those very ordinary men and women with modest homes, modest incomes and modest savings. Speaking a a Tory, it simply won't do and must be withdrawn forthwith even if this causes massive embarrassment to the Tory Party's hierarchy in the middle of a general Election campaign. If further massive amounts of tax are required, for that's what we are talking about here, then far fairer and more equitable to introduce a higher band of Inheritance tax, perhaps two higher bands, one for the moderately rich, say with estates worth > £2.5M and another for estates of > £7.5m or more, whilst at the same exempting from IHT estates worth < £0.5M.
Hi all, long time lurker but have to share that Betsafe have Labour vote share 35-40% at 25-1, compared to betfair which can be laid at 6.4 if anyone interested. Personally doubt they will get 35% plus but who knows at the moment!
And always worth remembering to knock 0.8 pp or so off the GB polls to get a UK figure.
Hi all, long time lurker but have to share that Betsafe have Labour vote share 35-40% at 25-1, compared to betfair which can be laid at 6.4 if anyone interested. Personally doubt they will get 35% plus but who knows at the moment!
Three days later and we are still talking about the dementia tax, and WFA.
This is BAD.
We ?? maybe, (I am not)... but are the voters? Anecdotal evidence on here suggests not.
As I said, it is 9th most read thing on BBC, less interesting than "Jogging Trudeau photobombs prom picture" at 7 and "Whales die off coast of East Anglia" at 8 and MUCH less interesting than Jezza the terrorist at no. 1. Arlene Foster is having a go at him in a speech in London tomorrow.
The Fightback Starts Here.
Arlene Foster ? DUP ? For God's sake. She , the one, whose knowledge of maths is even lower than Abbott's. Gave away £0.5bn in a tiny province.
I am sure she can count to 6, the number of times the Jezziah refused to condemn the IRA today.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is. .
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Let me put myself up as a nasty Tax planner.
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
No problems. You can do the same to avoid IHT. Defeats the whole point of it though..
If your kid splits with partner half your house goes
Tories should either announce a "calibration" which is actually a U-turn, or throw the world's biggest cat on the table. Now. Do it now. Every hour this story continues, more people hear about it, and more damage is done.
Half the problem is bedwetters like you endlessly dredging it up when the public's interest is less than fulsome, as shown by the most read rankings on the BBC.
The BBC and the Guardian choosing headlines the Tories wouldn't? I'm shocked, truly shocked.
Three days later and we are still talking about the dementia tax, and WFA.
This is BAD.
And it apppears it was done without briefing the cabinet and the Downing Street policy chief advised against it. May puts far too much trust in Timothy and Hill and they don't seem up to it.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is. .
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Let me put myself up as a nasty Tax planner.
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
The main flaw (to my mind) is that you lose what is yours. When you go into a care home, the local authority will look for the cheapest option; you'll have no say in it. Your children will have no legal obligation to assist you (although, they may choose to). You lose your independence, and become dependent on the goodwill of others.
If you think that your heirs will never betray you, I could show you some of my files.
A child gets married, then divorced, and the ex comes after the asset.
Tories should either announce a "calibration" which is actually a U-turn, or throw the world's biggest cat on the table. Now. Do it now. Every hour this story continues, more people hear about it, and more damage is done.
Half the problem is bedwetters like you endlessly dredging it up when the public's interest is less than fulsome, as shown by the most read rankings on the BBC.
So, if you live many years, the maximum inheritance for your children is £100k, am I right ?
No, that is only so if your non-house assets and the equity in your house over £100 000 are less than the total care fees. £100k is a minimum not a maximum.
My point was living many years, i.e. , having exhausted all non-house assets.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is. .
Well that's why the Tories shouldn't have touched this (or WFA) in the middle of an election campaign.
People will ALWAYS fear the worst with policies like this. Doesn't matter how much you reassure when it comes to taking things away from people (especially their homes) it's always going to be a nightmare to explain.
They should've just said something "wishy washy" about a royal commission and consultation on the social care crisis with implementation in 18 months and left it that...
I suspect arrogance and complanceny has caused most of this. They thought because their lead is so large and Jezza is LOTO the normal rules of politics don't apply.
I agree entirely.
Whilst lots of people on here seem to think it's all a great laugh I think it's at least possible that this could get very serious for the Conservatives indeed.
All the talk about Con getting a majority of 100 or 150 and winning seats like Bolsover - well a Con Majority of any kind is now available at 1.11 on Betfair.
We are now in a position where large numbers of people are thinking they may lose the majority of their inheritance and they are going to be scared stiff.
The fact they are completely mistaken - because there is literally almost zero chance of in-home care costs running into hundreds of thousands of pounds - is completely irrelevant.
People have now got it into their heads and once someone thinks something they keep thinking it.
"Literally zero chance..."? What are the costs per year ?
Personal care at home costs £16.70 an hour, residential care £700 a week, nursing care £1000 a week, it is the former where the home is now included in cost calculations, in the latter it already was and the latter will benefit from the rise of assets their estate can keep from £23k a year to £100k https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
Let me put myself up as a nasty Tax planner.
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
The mortgage would need to be paid off before the care assessment begins
Comments
West Ham 2 - 1 Burnley
EDIT : I suppose Bournemouth and Watford would be as well.
As they both have their own £95k protected?
What plausible alternative have they got?
It's hard to say they've opted for it when the only options (realisticaly, unless anyone thinks the LDs, SNP, Greens, or whoever can win a majority, in which case I'd line up to lay that bet) are May or Corbyn.
https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865324948792819712
If you have 24 hour round the clock care then the bill will be huge.
But for a typical person receiving Council care visits of say 30 mins per day the cost will be about £3k per year. One hour per day - £6k per year. Even two hours per day (which would be unusual) - £12k per year.
As I wrote sometime today, in the hands of a good tax planner, the combination of good IHT and Social Care planning, they will manage this thing quite well.
Give up the property well ahead of time, as much as 10/20 years, should do it.
Those who are just above the threshold , i.e. the not-so-rich will get hammered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
We have the choices of Not-Corbyn or Not-May. It's hard to discern much useful real information from that choice.
The rich will pay the cost of care. Certainly they are better able to finance this from liquid assets, like cash, shares, and pensions. So this change is largely irrelevant for them.
For everyone else it's that balance between paying more for care if you own your own home o the one hand with the protection from needing to sell it on the other.
One would have to be a fool to give away one's principal assets, just to avoid a charge.
The in-home care costs are only paid after death.
https://www.ft.com/content/a939409e-3e21-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58
1. I pass on my property to my child [ children ] after taking out a modest mortgage.
2. I rent the house back from my children [ sales and leaseback, anyone ]. Use the money from the mortgage to do so plus my pensions.
3. The children pay off the mortgage from the rent received.
4. Years later, if needed, I go into a care home.
Where are the faults in this plan ? There must be some. I have not encountered this yet, so not very knowledgeable.
Go to a care home, see if you can get a Council funded place, then come back and tell us what you find. Tell us what the care home is like.
If you have divested yourself of all your assets, you’ll be getting a very basic place at a pretty indifferent care home, or worse.
When you read stories of care home assistants taunting and making fun of the residents, do you think this is well-off people suffering such abuse in a shitty home ?
http://tinyurl.com/kuqsdxa
It is not. It is people who have Council funded places.
No-one who is rich or well-off is going to permit this happening to them by divesting themselves of all their assets.
You should stop posting on this issue as you seem to know f-all about it.
Sturgeon still head and shoulders above the rest, but she does seem to get flustered and irritated a bit more quickly than she did back in 2015.
Unforgiveable behaviour from the authorities.
Kid gets divorced - kid's spouse takes 50%.
Result: 50% of "your" assets gone.
Not good and even worse if it's your home.
The Fightback Starts Here.
If you think that your heirs will never betray you, I could show you some of my files.
It's £850k today, £900k from April 2018, £950k from April 2019, £1m from April 2020.
"I was scammed into their free "10 …
I was scammed into their free "10 bonus" offer. After depositing £10 - I then happily proceeding betting and turned my £10 into roughly £150.
After not being able to cash out, I was then told by an advisor i had to bet an incredible £1000!! before I could reach the 'bonus limit' and cash out.
Horrendous scam - avoid this site at all costs. If that isn't encouraging a gambling addiction I don't know what is."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/0
I think for the social care thread, half is an overestimate. Probably one per cent.
Speaking a a Tory, it simply won't do and must be withdrawn forthwith even if this causes massive embarrassment to the Tory Party's hierarchy in the middle of a general Election campaign. If further massive amounts of tax are required, for that's what we are talking about here, then far fairer and more equitable to introduce a higher band of Inheritance tax, perhaps two higher bands, one for the moderately rich, say with estates worth > £2.5M and another for estates of > £7.5m or more, whilst at the same exempting from IHT estates worth < £0.5M.
But is betsafe, err, safe?
https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-sites/betsafe/
Have any PB punters had good/bad experiences with them?
The BBC and the Guardian choosing headlines the Tories wouldn't? I'm shocked, truly shocked.