selling your home to pay for care home costs

What if they haven't got a home to sell?

What if they need special attention that can only be given to them in a home?

EMR will get back to us on those 2 I guess.

In about 5 years

There is no real alternative. It is impossible for the state to continue paying. The care for those without funds will be alot lot poorer in future unfortunately.

if their children cant look after them during their old age the children should get nothing when they are gone.

I agree, though fixing at IHT at 100% on all estates over £250* is another way of solving the problem.

(*Why £250 - because it's nice to be able to buy yourself a little treat to remind yourself of a dearly departed loved one, imo...)

Would your IHT have exemptions between spouses DR J.

i tend to agre with Dr J about selling homes to pay for care -why not? Its only the children that will inherit if the council bears the cost and they are more likely to be the selfish ones for sticking mother in a home in the first place-anyway the country cannot afford it

Yes, Harry.

Simon, would you reply to my earlier post please

Would your IHT have exemptions between spouses DR J.

So, a widower could marry another man in a civil partnership who could marry the widowers son upon death of his father. So when the old man croaks, the money passes to the son apro po no IHT?

well blackburn in the case where there is no choice but to place them in a home then the state has to bear the cost --Yiu could set up some kind of mandatory insurance policy for people to pay throughout there lives but ultimately you cannto just ignore the care needs of the elderly

Would your IHT have exemptions between spouses DR J.

So, a widower could marry another man in a civil partnership who could marry the widowers son upon death of his father. So when the old man croaks, the money passes to the son apro po no IHT?

Let's get this right - the woman has to marry her dead husband's son in order that he receives the estate?

Well, I guess it's a loophole of sorts...

What about parents who both die young leaving children. You would happily take the house and any money and kick them out onto the streets.

And people couldnt leave money to a disabled son or daughter for their future.

Its just means testing though simon which is wrong, and a mandatory insurance is just another tax like NI.

I love the way lefties are quite happy for someone to sell their house to get care while others dont, it compares most interestingly with their views on the NHS.

yes Blackburn I can see your point and if it were at all affordable (the problem is going to get worse) then I would suggest a universal care programme but its just not affordable

The healthy, wealthy and wise transfer ownership to their loved ones years in advance - so the state CANNOT access it.

simon, it is the biggest problem we face, I agree. I can see no solution other than people working longer in order to fund retirement.

My concscience is (reasonably) clear as my m-in-law lives with us in a self contained annexe, the look of horror we get from most people is amazing.

THere is lttle enough incentive already to save for your retirement but under Dr Js law there would be a rush of 60 somethings spending their savings before going to the Government and claiming very benefit available.

We are just going to have to phase in an attitude/system that dictates you will not be wholly looked after in retirement.

Phase it in over about a day, I suggest

Harry - there would obviously be exemptions for people who leave dependents behind.

Funny how you spot all the problem with my proposed system but turn a blind eye to the hundreds of state-sanctioned loopholes that currently allow the wealthy to evade IHT.

The wealthy or everybody?

And what is a loophole in relation to the law?

blackburn 17 Nov 16:08
And what is a loophole in relation to the law?


You should ask those 2 well known socialists, David and Ed Miliband about that. ;)

Just in case they refuse to answer, here's a brief explanation of just one example, one that they apparently know very well. ;)

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/deed-of-variation.htm

Dr Crippen 17 Nov 13:53

What if they need special attention that can only be given to them in a home?

The Coughlan case ruling states that if the primary reason for being in care is due to medical need, the care is 100% free for anybody, irrespective of assets.

Dr J just admit it that its a feeble idea that you havent thought through at all. Aside from all the holes it would just be a despicable law punishing all hardworking people and other than chav layabouts would have no support at all.

Personally have visited these care homes early in the morning and seen and smelled the place.
I think it would be more humane for us all to be given the choice of a dignified exit.

my mother in law was looked after by my wife and her sister until she died. why should the taxpayer pay for someone to go to a posh nursing home picked by their children when people who got no savings or property is put into the cheapest home available by social services.

Looked after my mother at home when she had a stroke and was half paralysed and incontinent.never got a penny subsistence as the state didnt agree she needed constant care at the time (30 years ago). Cant see why people should be given so many benefits now if we got so little then.Is that any different ? If you are going to have state benefits they should,at least be available to those that have helped fund them ahead of those who have never worked and shown no inclination to work.I find no reason to sell my home to pay for my care while others get it free when my daughter and I have worked our socks off to get what we have instead of pis***g it against the wall.

why should someone go into a £600 a week care home and expect the tax payers to keep them in there for free when there are care homes much cheaper around. my point is that if their children wants then to go into a posh one they should pay the differance even if their parents home has to be sold.