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 Speaking a a Tory, it simply won't do and must be withdrawn forthwith even if this causes massive embarrassment to the Tory Party's hierarchy in the middle of a general Election campaign.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.
It is a lot fairer than what we have now (the entire burden loaded onto people who need residential care)
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 Speaking a a Tory, it simply won't do and must be withdrawn forthwith even if this causes massive embarrassment to the Tory Party's hierarchy in the middle of a general Election campaign.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.
I don't believe it's unfair. I think it's an improvement on the current situation.
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?
I don't think any government could get away with scrapping it for millionaires in the way it could with scrapping it for those with assets up to £1 million and electorally there is very little benefit and lost revenue
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 4948792819712
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.
Curiousity/boredom/alcohol >> leadership favourability regression >> predicted Tory lead of 13% at the GE. Caveats of applicability and lack of current mental faculties apply.
Mr Baxter says 47-34 gives us a majority of ...... exactly 100. How tidy.
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.
But IHT does not generate much income, even at the moment. If we are to do social care properly we need far more income every year than IHT produces. Those with millions to worry about can afford tax planning and for them, unexpected early death apart, the tax is entirely voluntary.
"As flies to wanton boys are we to th' gods, They kill us for their sport.
Again Shakespeare nails it. My heritage is one of independence and looking after oneself. But I won't be able to if I go potty.
Similarly, car drivers tend to calm down as they age. But then their necks get stiff, hearing ebbs, and reflexes slow. "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
The Scottish leaders debate has the leaders getting to speak in roughly the proportion that they are likely to get in the Election itself. Pretty poor division of airtime by Sarah Smith Nicola has just been the only speaker for the last 4 or 5 minutes now
"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
Your own mortgage would surely need to be paid off before the house is passed on to the children in the first place? Banks in my experience take a fairly dim view of people holding mortgages on properties to which they don't hold the title.
It's also wildly tax-inefficient in the short term, since you will be giving money to your children as rent, on which they will pay income tax. If you've got the money to give you may as well keep the house and gift the money (well, £6k a year of it).
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 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.
OK, technically you are correct but nonetheless assuming the Tories are re elected IHT will effectively cease to exist by 2020 for all those with an estate worth less than £1 million and before then more are being taken out of it each year. That will not be the case if Corbyn wins as McDonnell has promised to lower the IHT threshold again for married couples
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
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.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
"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
Your own mortgage would surely need to be paid off before the house is passed on to the children in the first place? Banks in my experience take a fairly dim view of people holding mortgages on properties to which they don't hold the title.
It's also wildly tax-inefficient in the short term, since you will be giving money to your children as rent, on which they will pay income tax. If you've got the money to give you may as well keep the house and gift the money (well, £6k a year of it).
Or better still downsize to a flat or bungalow and give them the assets from the sale of the main house
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.
OK, technically you are correct but nonetheless assuming the Tories are re elected IHT will effectively cease to exist by 2020 for all those with an estate worth less than £1 million and before then more are being taken out of it each year. That will not be the case if Corbyn wins as McDonnell has promised to lower the IHT threshold again for married couples
For the record the Lab manifesto just proposes scrapping the homes allowance.
It will still allow the transfer of the £325k IHT allowance between couples.
So allowance will be £650k for couples under Labour.
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?
I don't think any government could get away with scrapping it for millionaires in the way it could with scrapping it for those with assets up to £1 million and electorally there is very little benefit and lost revenue
The problem with the idea (one of Osborne's, I think) of only "millionaires" paying IHT is that it encourages the idea that millionaires should be the only people who pay any tax.
Anyway - odds are that the narrowing polls will have had a negative feedback effect. By making it seem more likely that Corbyn could win (I know he's still 9% behind, but the narrative is that the Tory lead is slashed, so most people who aren't as anoraky as us will just have that as their takeaway), the fear of Corbyn reasserts and the next poll ends up with a 13-16 point lead.
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.
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
I think the Tories are worried that , in the new scheme, far more people will be caught even though the £23k has become £100k. The emotive "home" is under threat for far, far, more people.
That is the vibe I am picking up.
By the way, I believe, the LDs will now win Kingston & Surbiton and Twickenham. I do not know about Carshalton. Bermondsey: the Labour majority will be well above 5000.
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
I think the Tories are worried that , in the new scheme, far more people will be caught even though the £23k has become £100k. The emotive "home" is under threat for far, far, more people.
That is the vibe I am picking up.
By the way, I believe, the LDs will now win Kingston & Surbiton and Twickenham. I do not know about Carshalton. Bermondsey: the Labour majority will be well above 5000.
One silver lining of this policy is that Sarah Olney might just GAIN Richmond Park from Judas Iscariot.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
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.
Any arrangement that looks like a sale and leaseback with relatives is clearly designed as an avoidance vehicle and will get picked up as such. Safest way to guarantee inheritance is to actually downsize well ahead of when care may be necessary, spend cash on intangibles such as holidays and school fees for the grandchildren.
Also, a sale of property to children would attract higher 'buy-to-let' rates of stamp duty based on the current value of the property.
One downside that does spring to mind thinking through various scenarios, is where one partner spends a lot of time in care but dies young, and the charge on the house lasts for maybe 20 years accruing interest. Even at a regulated nominal rate, this can still lead to a much higher than expected bill on the second death, or when the property is eventually sold.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
Anyway - odds are that the narrowing polls will have had a negative feedback effect. By making it seem more likely that Corbyn could win (I know he's still 9% behind, but the narrative is that the Tory lead is slashed, so most people who aren't as anoraky as us will just have that as their takeaway), the fear of Corbyn reasserts and the next poll ends up with a 13-16 point lead.
Remember, LABOUR CANNOT WIN. CORBYN WILL NOT BE PM.
So, use your vote as a protest against May personally.
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
I think the Tories are worried that , in the new scheme, far more people will be caught even though the £23k has become £100k. The emotive "home" is under threat for far, far, more people.
Assuming surviving spouses will be protected from having to sell their homes, do a lot of children move into their parents' homes when they inherit them? In cases where the parental home is going to be sold after their deaths, I really don't see what's unique about the home. Isn't it just another asset?
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
I think the Tories are worried that , in the new scheme, far more people will be caught even though the £23k has become £100k. The emotive "home" is under threat for far, far, more people.
That is the vibe I am picking up.
By the way, I believe, the LDs will now win Kingston & Surbiton and Twickenham. I do not know about Carshalton. Bermondsey: the Labour majority will be well above 5000.
One silver lining of this policy is that Sarah Olney might just GAIN Richmond Park from Judas Iscariot.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in their 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
"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
Your own mortgage would surely need to be paid off before the house is passed on to the children in the first place? Banks in my experience take a fairly dim view of people holding mortgages on properties to which they don't hold the title.
It's also wildly tax-inefficient in the short term, since you will be giving money to your children as rent, on which they will pay income tax. If you've got the money to give you may as well keep the house and gift the money (well, £6k a year of it).
Or better still downsize to a flat or bungalow and give them the assets from the sale of the main house
The flaw is that acting in this way in order to get free care is contrary to the law, and authorities can (and occasionally have) come for the money, even if it has been pre-inherited, even years after the event. Whether they will, and whether their case succeeds, are of course big questions. Nevertheless the risk is there.
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
I think the Tories are worried that , in the new scheme, far more people will be caught even though the £23k has become £100k. The emotive "home" is under threat for far, far, more people.
That is the vibe I am picking up.
By the way, I believe, the LDs will now win Kingston & Surbiton and Twickenham. I do not know about Carshalton. Bermondsey: the Labour majority will be well above 5000.
One silver lining of this policy is that Sarah Olney might just GAIN Richmond Park from Judas Iscariot.
Mark Reckless is standing for the Tories in Richmond Park?
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
Anyway - odds are that the narrowing polls will have had a negative feedback effect. By making it seem more likely that Corbyn could win (I know he's still 9% behind, but the narrative is that the Tory lead is slashed, so most people who aren't as anoraky as us will just have that as their takeaway), the fear of Corbyn reasserts and the next poll ends up with a 13-16 point lead.
Remember, LABOUR CANNOT WIN. CORBYN WILL NOT BE PM.
So, use your vote as a protest against May personally.
2015:
Remember, CORBYN CANNOT WIN. LABOUR WILL NOT BE LED BY A MARXIST NUTTER.
So, use your vote as a harmless virtue-signalling mechanism.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Eh? The person is liable for care costs, down the the 100k point, and is liable to pay them upon death assuming they can't pay in the meantime. The children at that point do have the slight problem of only inheriting £100k (or whatever is left if higher), divided between them, and needing to find somewhere to live.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
As I read it in the manifesto, any properties affected don't go until after the owner is dead And nobody in receipt of an inheritance of £100,000 (or even a significant fraction thereof) is going to end up sleeping on a park bench.
Anyway - odds are that the narrowing polls will have had a negative feedback effect. By making it seem more likely that Corbyn could win (I know he's still 9% behind, but the narrative is that the Tory lead is slashed, so most people who aren't as anoraky as us will just have that as their takeaway), the fear of Corbyn reasserts and the next poll ends up with a 13-16 point lead.
Remember, LABOUR CANNOT WIN. CORBYN WILL NOT BE PM.
So, use your vote as a protest against May personally.
No. I'll use my vote as a protest against a cabal of far left terrorist sympathisers and anti-Semites. Far more fitting, I think.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
If properties cost 5/6/7...10 times annual gross income , that could be interesting.
Has anyone taken a punt on the Tories getting most votes in Scotland?
No one sane.
I wouldn't go near that bet. Tories are still slightly toxic, from the Thatcher era.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
On my thread piece I was at 48. I think I still am but I am getting slightly more twitchy. I hear from friends that the Lib Dems are very confident in Edinburgh West. Nothing like the level of SNP activity or enthusiasm that there was 2 years ago. OTOH the resilience of SLAB, despite being good for the Union, is probably not great for the Tories getting tactical support where they need it.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
"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
Your own mortgage would surely need to be paid off before the house is passed on to the children in the first place? Banks in my experience take a fairly dim view of people holding mortgages on properties to which they don't hold the title.
It's also wildly tax-inefficient in the short term, since you will be giving money to your children as rent, on which they will pay income tax. If you've got the money to give you may as well keep the house and gift the money (well, £6k a year of it).
Or better still downsize to a flat or bungalow and give them the assets from the sale of the main house
The flaw is that acting in this way in order to get free care is contrary to the law, and authorities can (and occasionally have) come for the money, even if it has been pre-inherited, even years after the event. Whether they will, and whether their case succeeds, are of course big questions. Nevertheless the risk is there.
That was the case with IHT but only if you did it 7 years or less before you died, if you did it 8 years before you could do it entirely within the law and the authorities could not touch the transferred assets. If the Tory social care proposals do not have such a law then there would be no issue but if they did just make sure you downsize by your early 70s before you really start to need care
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
Yes! I am in this very situation. I'm not too worried, but I am thinking that we should consider moving to a new house which I could own a chunk of.
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
Under the current rules the asset isn't counted as an asset if you and your husband are legally joint beneficiaries of any potential sale and the partner continues to live there. Once they don't it comes into play. So if they die before the one in care the whole asset is available to council.
Who knows if the same will apply under Tory proposal
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?
I don't think any government could get away with scrapping it for millionaires in the way it could with scrapping it for those with assets up to £1 million and electorally there is very little benefit and lost revenue
The problem with the idea (one of Osborne's, I think) of only "millionaires" paying IHT is that it encourages the idea that millionaires should be the only people who pay any tax.
And the only millionaires that ever pay IHT are those who drop down dead young or die in an accident. Older rich people make sure they plan to avoid it. Might as well just scrap it completely.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
There's simply no getting away from it .... the Dementia Tax is grossly unfair ...
I really don't see how it's more unfair than the current system of making people in care homes pay for their own care if they have more than £23k of savings.
I think the Tories are worried that , in the new scheme, far more people will be caught even though the £23k has become £100k. The emotive "home" is under threat for far, far, more people.
Assuming surviving spouses will be protected from having to sell their homes, do a lot of children move into their parents' homes when they inherit them? In cases where the parental home is going to be sold after their deaths, I really don't see what's unique about the home. Isn't it just another asset?
Precisely. The distinction between the value of someone's savings and that of their home is arbitrary.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
A problem that the policy itself will play a part in resolving. As the equity in property of the current generation of owners is used up in living costs in lieu of decent pension provision, and to meet care costs, the cost of property to the next generation will be pulled back towards a more sensible relationship with their earnings.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word? Who are "us" in that context?
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
If properties cost 5/6/7...10 times annual gross income , that could be interesting.
Your Mum has raised a good point.
Most young people now get support from their parents to get a deposit and get on the housing ladder, parents will just need to give more of any assets that might have been a potential future inheritance
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
Anyway - odds are that the narrowing polls will have had a negative feedback effect. By making it seem more likely that Corbyn could win (I know he's still 9% behind, but the narrative is that the Tory lead is slashed, so most people who aren't as anoraky as us will just have that as their takeaway), the fear of Corbyn reasserts and the next poll ends up with a 13-16 point lead.
Remember, LABOUR CANNOT WIN. CORBYN WILL NOT BE PM.
So, use your vote as a protest against May personally.
No. I'll use my vote as a protest against a cabal of far left terrorist sympathisers and anti-Semites. Far more fitting, I think.
+1,000,000 :-)
Corbyn is a wrong'un, many of his associates worse. Thoroughly deserving of a good kick in the nads.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
Have we moved on from advocating that minimum wage workers living in bedsits and people with zero property assets should subsidise the free care of those with property worth hundreds of thousands?
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery. The Care Act 2014 further extended the powers to recover from relatives if money or property has been passed on for this reason. Proving it is of course another matter, but there have been cases. And of course the majority of folk would find the risk and being on the wrong side of the law sufficient disincentive. Google Deprivation of Assets. And, unlike for tax, there is no seven year limit.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
That was the case with IHT but only if you did it 7 years or less before you died, if you did it 8 years before you could do it entirely within the law and the authorities could not touch the transferred assets. If the Tory social care proposals do not have such a law then there would be no issue but if they did just make sure you downsize by your early 70s before you really start to need care
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
Apparently so, not that it's likely to achieve cut-through with the public.
Most voters pay basically fuck-all attention to anything. Too busy having actual lives, not going on about politics.
Sorry for the language, I'm a tad merry this evening.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
Never sell a house. Only buy.
I rented it out, then used the proceeds a much better house oop North for a lot less.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
I would have thought none. But the council could come back on "intent" like in any other scheme.
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.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
Never sell a house. Only buy.
The modern rentiers are all in the left party, obviously
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
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.
Actually the more demented you are the more likely you are to die off quickly. The better ( and likely more expensive) care you are the more likely you are to live longer.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery. The Care Act 2014 further extended the powers to recover from relatives if money or property has been passed on for this reason. Proving it is of course another matter, but there have been cases. And of course the majority of folk would find the risk and being on the wrong side of the law sufficient disincentive. Google Deprivation of Assets. And, unlike for tax, there is no seven year limit.
I doubt that there would be many attempts to enforce it. I used to work in an area where the concept of deprivation existed but was rarely applied. The people concerned really needed to be edge cases to be challenged.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
Oh dear. If we can't get them for being fans of the IRA specifically, let's just get them for hating Britain generally.
Exactly, that is the real point. Anyone who hates the UK, "the West", our liberal values, whatever, is worthy of support no matter how demented, violent, evil or crazy. Just hating us is enough. IRA, Hamas, Iran, it really doesn't matter. The bottom line is they hate this country and everything it stands for. So they should just fuck off.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
That was the case with IHT but only if you did it 7 years or less before you died, if you did it 8 years before you could do it entirely within the law and the authorities could not touch the transferred assets. If the Tory social care proposals do not have such a law then there would be no issue but if they did just make sure you downsize by your early 70s before you really start to need care
As all estates under £1 million will be taken out of IHT by 2020 it effectively ceases to exist for all bar multi millionaires in 2020. The deprivation of assets rules come from the Care Act 2014 and put the onus on the local authority to show you were deliberately depriving yourself of assets to avoid them getting their hands on them to pay for care, if you downsized years before you needed care and gave the assets from the sale of your main home to your children they would be unable to do so
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
I would have thought none. But the council could come back on "intent" like in any other scheme.
As it says in the Age uK guide very helpfully linked below, if you are fit and healthy at the time, you are in the clear. If you are demonstrating symptoms (and this was later evidenced), then possibly not.
Yep. My grandfather had slight dementia, it only really took hold badly just before he died but the poor man couldn't speak and couldn't walk at the end. He was like a child, even had a nappy on. I had a nightmare about it a few nights ago, seeing him like that in his hospital bed. I think I will go and watch something cheerful for a bit.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. If you have cancer you have very expensive chemotherapy absolutely free. Without it you die. If you have dementia you get very expensive care. Without it you die. Can any Tory on here please tell me what's the difference between these 2 diseases?
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
Oh dear. If we can't get them for being fans of the IRA specifically, let's just get them for hating Britain generally.
Exactly, that is the real point. Anyone who hates the UK, "the West", our liberal values, whatever, is worthy of support no matter how demented, violent, evil or crazy. Just hating us is enough. IRA, Hamas, Iran, it really doesn't matter. The bottom line is they hate this country and everything it stands for. So they should just fuck off.
Whereas being in favour of policies to make disabled people's suffering worse in order to make the 1% richer proves you love this country
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
Comments
No more.
In the latest Yougov and Survation , their total is less than 50%.
Are we going to see Corbyn in Sturgeon's pocket ? Funnily enough, this time the public may not believe it.
I would be quite happy to be "close to" Leanne Wood though.
Mr Baxter says 47-34 gives us a majority of ...... exactly 100. How tidy.
They kill us for their sport.
Again Shakespeare nails it. My heritage is one of independence and looking after oneself. But I won't be able to if I go potty.
Similarly, car drivers tend to calm down as they age. But then their necks get stiff, hearing ebbs, and reflexes slow. "Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything."
It's also wildly tax-inefficient in the short term, since you will be giving money to your children as rent, on which they will pay income tax. If you've got the money to give you may as well keep the house and gift the money (well, £6k a year of it).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39992892
Jeremy Corbyn has refused to single out the IRA for condemnation when pressed over his past campaigning activities.
It's every PB Tories' duty to reload that page as much as humanly possible.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
It will still allow the transfer of the £325k IHT allowance between couples.
So allowance will be £650k for couples under Labour.
That is the vibe I am picking up.
By the way, I believe, the LDs will now win Kingston & Surbiton and Twickenham. I do not know about Carshalton. Bermondsey: the Labour majority will be well above 5000.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
Also, a sale of property to children would attract higher 'buy-to-let' rates of stamp duty based on the current value of the property.
One downside that does spring to mind thinking through various scenarios, is where one partner spends a lot of time in care but dies young, and the charge on the house lasts for maybe 20 years accruing interest. Even at a regulated nominal rate, this can still lead to a much higher than expected bill on the second death, or when the property is eventually sold.
So, use your vote as a protest against May personally.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in their 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Remember, CORBYN CANNOT WIN. LABOUR WILL NOT BE LED BY A MARXIST NUTTER.
So, use your vote as a harmless virtue-signalling mechanism.
The more demented you are, the more you pay?
Your Mum has raised a good point.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
Who knows if the same will apply under Tory proposal
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
https://twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/866381955969019904
She actually said that, word for word? Who are "us" in that context?
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
Corbyn is a wrong'un, many of his associates worse. Thoroughly deserving of a good kick in the nads.
Iran held an election on Friday, in which the victor received 57% of the votes and I did not hear anything about fraud etc.
I saw women in the streets celebrating. I wish I could see a hundredth of that in Saudi Arabia.
Have we moved on from advocating that minimum wage workers living in bedsits and people with zero property assets should subsidise the free care of those with property worth hundreds of thousands?
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/866067683527315457
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/866067822639808512
The relevant parallel isn't IHT, it's the Deprivation of Assets Rules. http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/deprivation-of-assets-in-the-means-test-for-care-home-provision/
Most voters pay basically fuck-all attention to anything. Too busy having actual lives, not going on about politics.
Sorry for the language, I'm a tad merry this evening.
Ending free school lunches and just funding breakfasts was the most unpopular policy in the entire Tory manifesto with 53% opposed to 23% in favour, voters actually backed means testing WFA by 49% to 34% and on the social care proposals were only narrowly opposed by 40% to 35%
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wvyc3lofp5/SundayTimesResults_170519_VI_W.pdf
'I offer witty, perceptive, and intelligent analysis, he is a wind up merchant, you are a troll'
Collectively: do I have to pay anything towards these policies? Fuck that.
https://twitter.com/TheJakeWarren/status/866378523568721924
Absolute scum, the pair of 'em.
And Labour will still, most likely, poll more than 30% of the vote on the big day.
Sometimes I despair.
I had a nightmare about it a few nights ago, seeing him like that in his hospital bed. I think I will go and watch something cheerful for a bit.