Brexit, for once some facts.

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
I’m sorry to hear that you are faced with this situation, and agree with what others have said.

If it’s not a too personal question, why are you investigating methods of protecting your home from being used as an asset to pay for care? Ultimately, what would you like to do with the house when, as happens to us all, you and your wife have passed on? (I am assuming it is your home which is the subject of this post.)

I‘m just wondering from who or from what you are looking to protect the house from.
The answer is of course to pass it on the our daughters, and indeed to get a handle on my personal financial situation should I survive my wife's passing, which is not of course assured.
And of course should I be the first to go, what her fate will be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 50Hertz

oyster

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 7, 2017
10,422
14,609
West West Wales
The answer is of course to pass it on the our daughters, and indeed to get a handle on my personal financial situation should I survive my wife's passing, which is not of course assured.
And of course should I be the first to go, what her fate will be.
My step-father died many years ago when split wills were the thing to do. His half of the house was passed on to my sister and me. Thus leaving my mother with her half (and lifetime interest) and reducing the liability to tax - so long as she survived for long enough.

Trouble was, my mother never did the necessary transfer and remained owner of the house up to her death. I don't know if that was intentional or oversight. Luckily, the limits had risen sufficiently in the interim such that it had little effect but if a) she had died earlier and b) the limits had not been raised, we could have missed out substantially.

I mention this because what seems to make sense one day can fail to have the expected effect for various reasons.
 

50Hertz

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 2, 2019
2,199
2,403
The answer is of course to pass it on the our daughters, and indeed to get a handle on my personal financial situation should I survive my wife's passing, which is not of course assured.
And of course should I be the first to go, what her fate will be.
That is what I thought, but wanted to check. I can understand and fully agree with your desire to pass on the assets, which you and your wife have worked for and saved for over your lifetime, to your daughters. My view is that you have every right to do that and you, or anyone else, should not be "fined" because a family member has been unlucky enough to suffer from dementia.

How do you feel about Labour's proposal to reduce the tax free element of inheritance from £600+K to around £250K before a taxation rate of 40% kicks in? In effect, whether we pay it directly to the care provider (saving the government funding care costs), or directly to the government in the form of inheritance tax, one way or another they will take your assets.

I remember looking after my aunts affairs in the last few years of her life. I was her next of kin. The time came for her to move into a care home and Social Services were all over us for the money from her house. They wanted her to pay £4K a month to live in an OK care home where other people were getting it for free. I refused and got her a place in a BUPA run home in a converted country house. The staff to patient ratio was excellent and they ran assorts of classes to stimulate and entertain the residents. She was very happy there, but it cost over double the other place. I didn't want my aunt's money, so I spent it all on her care. Social Services were vile and used many dirty trick to try and get her into one of their "tame" care homes where the self payers are charged over 200% more than the local authority is charged for their non self-funded residents. The £4K / month is another tax, the level of care is not worth that amount.

It got to the point with Social Services where my brother and I had to "physically" explain to the money grabbing bastards that my aunt was going to live where we choose and not one of their Saudi owned "tame" fleecing centres.

It's a real scam, I can tell you. Look after that wife of yours and treat social workers with a great deal of suspicion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: POLLY

daveboy

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 19, 2012
952
1,366
pontefract
We moved my late Mums home into my brothers and my name to avoid this and to avoid going through probate. We were told at the time that if she had to go into care we would be chased for the money from the house if 7 years had not passed and even the 7 years was not set in stone, as it happened she died at home without ever going into care,
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,376
16,875
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
How do you feel about Labour's proposal to reduce the tax free element of inheritance from £600+K to around £250K before a taxation rate of 40% kicks in?
I support this idea, although I would prefer to have a 20% band between 250k and 600k.
How about taxing the estate instead of heirs?
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
That is what I thought, but wanted to check. I can understand and fully agree with your desire to pass on the assets, which you and your wife have worked for and saved for over your lifetime, to your daughters. My view is that you have every right to do that and you, or anyone else, should not be "fined" because a family member has been unlucky enough to suffer from dementia.

How do you feel about Labour's proposal to reduce the tax free element of inheritance from £600+K to around £250K before a taxation rate of 40% kicks in? In effect, whether we pay it directly to the care provider (saving the government funding care costs), or directly to the government in the form of inheritance tax, one way or another they will take your assets.

I remember looking after my aunts affairs in the last few years of her life. I was her next of kin. The time came for her to move into a care home and Social Services were all over us for the money from her house. They wanted her to pay £4K a month to live in an OK care home where other people were getting it for free. I refused and got her a place in a BUPA run home in a converted country house. The staff to patient ratio was excellent and they ran assorts of classes to stimulate and entertain the residents. She was very happy there, but it cost over double the other place. I didn't want my aunt's money, so I spent it all on her care. Social Services were vile and used many dirty trick to try and get her into one of their "tame" care homes where the self payers are charged over 200% more than the local authority is charged for their non self-funded residents. The £4K / month is another tax, the level of care is not worth that amount.

It got to the point with Social Services where my brother and I had to "physically" explain to the money grabbing bastards that my aunt was going to live where we choose and not one of their Saudi owned "tame" fleecing centres.

It's a real scam, I can tell you. Look after that wife of yours and treat social workers with a great deal of suspicion.
In this area the house prices generally fall below the level Labour would apply
 
  • Informative
Reactions: 50Hertz

Fingers

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 9, 2016
3,373
1,552
46
That is what I thought, but wanted to check. I can understand and fully agree with your desire to pass on the assets, which you and your wife have worked for and saved for over your lifetime, to your daughters. My view is that you have every right to do that and you, or anyone else, should not be "fined" because a family member has been unlucky enough to suffer from dementia.

How do you feel about Labour's proposal to reduce the tax free element of inheritance from £600+K to around £250K before a taxation rate of 40% kicks in? In effect, whether we pay it directly to the care provider (saving the government funding care costs), or directly to the government in the form of inheritance tax, one way or another they will take your assets.

I remember looking after my aunts affairs in the last few years of her life. I was her next of kin. The time came for her to move into a care home and Social Services were all over us for the money from her house. They wanted her to pay £4K a month to live in an OK care home where other people were getting it for free. I refused and got her a place in a BUPA run home in a converted country house. The staff to patient ratio was excellent and they ran assorts of classes to stimulate and entertain the residents. She was very happy there, but it cost over double the other place. I didn't want my aunt's money, so I spent it all on her care. Social Services were vile and used many dirty trick to try and get her into one of their "tame" care homes where the self payers are charged over 200% more than the local authority is charged for their non self-funded residents. The £4K / month is another tax, the level of care is not worth that amount.

It got to the point with Social Services where my brother and I had to "physically" explain to the money grabbing bastards that my aunt was going to live where we choose and not one of their Saudi owned "tame" fleecing centres.

It's a real scam, I can tell you. Look after that wife of yours and treat social workers with a great deal of suspicion.

There are 3 arguments there.

The social care budget

Inheritance tax

badly run care homes.

Labour has said in their manifesto that they will deal with all of these.

I have no problem with inheritance being tax free up £250k. I am happy for the resultant tax surplus to be used to pay for social care for the elderly.

Labour will stop the privatisation of the NHS and bring these grubby privately owned grief pits into public ownership.

Can you tell me what your gang intend to?
 

Danidl

Esteemed Pedelecer
Sep 29, 2016
8,611
12,256
73
Ireland
That is what I thought, but wanted to check. I can understand and fully agree with your desire to pass on the assets, which you and your wife have worked for and saved for over your lifetime, to your daughters. My view is that you have every right to do that and you, or anyone else, should not be "fined" because a family member has been unlucky enough to suffer from dementia.

How do you feel about Labour's proposal to reduce the tax free element of inheritance from £600+K to around £250K before a taxation rate of 40% kicks in? In effect, whether we pay it directly to the care provider (saving the government funding care costs), or directly to the government in the form of inheritance tax, one way or another they will take your assets.

I remember looking after my aunts affairs in the last few years of her life. I was her next of kin. The time came for her to move into a care home and Social Services were all over us for the money from her house. They wanted her to pay £4K a month to live in an OK care home where other people were getting it for free. I refused and got her a place in a BUPA run home in a converted country house. The staff to patient ratio was excellent and they ran assorts of classes to stimulate and entertain the residents. She was very happy there, but it cost over double the other place. I didn't want my aunt's money, so I spent it all on her care. Social Services were vile and used many dirty trick to try and get her into one of their "tame" care homes where the self payers are charged over 200% more than the local authority is charged for their non self-funded residents. The £4K / month is another tax, the level of care is not worth that amount.

It got to the point with Social Services where my brother and I had to "physically" explain to the money grabbing bastards that my aunt was going to live where we choose and not one of their Saudi owned "tame" fleecing centres.

It's a real scam, I can tell you. Look after that wife of yours and treat social workers with a great deal of suspicion.
I can get the feeling of hurt you experienced in these transactions. I also have a responsibility for an Aunt who is in a private care home now. But what I cannot understand where the Saudi element relates. Surely what you are describing is a failure of the NHS to invest state funds in care for the elderly,and a distancing from the Service aspect of a Health Service. The Saudis ,if involved,have one interest, Profit. What you are also indicating is that there was a level of corruption with the people in Social Services you were dealing with. This is very much at odds with the majority of your previous postings.
 

Wicky

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 12, 2014
2,823
4,011
Colchester, Essex
www.jhepburn.co.uk
NHS to invest state funds in care for the elderly
While there are Care of the Elderly wards in most hospitals. Outside of that it falls upon County social services. Some hospitals even have social Service offices in them with social workers to facilitate discharge. While there used to be govt. centrally funded Independepent Living Funding for the disabled that was disbanded and rejigged so responsibilities were handed to local authorities and privatised providers to administer.
 

50Hertz

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 2, 2019
2,199
2,403
I can get the feeling of hurt you experienced in these transactions. I also have a responsibility for an Aunt who is in a private care home now. But what I cannot understand where the Saudi element relates.
The Saudi element arrises due to the fact that many of the care home groups, certainly in this area and I believe more widely, have sold their property assets to Saudi investment groups. They now rent the properties back on a basis similar to the disastrous PFI schemes of a few years ago. I assume that the owners weren't getting rich enough, fast enough.

What you are describing is a failure of the NHS to invest state funds in care for the elderly, and a distancing from the Service aspect of a Health Service. The Saudis ,if involved,have one interest, Profit.
I agree completely, care for elderly people is not an industry, it's a service. In the present climate, the residents aren't looked upon as people in need of care, they are viewed as units of profit and each penny spent looking after one unit is a penny less in the pockets of the owners.

A friend who I run with works as a carer in a local home owned by a consortium of GPs. They also own a couple of other care homes. They sold all three properties to a Saudi investment group five years ago. The care fees for a self funded resident is over £4K / month. He (in his mid fifties) and the other carers earn just over minimum wage. He's convinced the GPs chemically cosh the residents to enable the staffing levels to be kept to the absolute bare minimum at all times, thus maximising the yield from each resident unit. (I deliberately use cold & callous language to highlight what a heartless & mercenary regime exists behind the the caring work done by those on barely a living wage.)

What you are also indicating is that there was a level of corruption with the people in Social Services you were dealing with. This is very much at odds with the majority of your previous postings.
I wouldn't go as far as to say there is corruption within Social Services. What happens is this & I will use rounded numbers to illustrate the point. It's also important to distinguish between Private & "Private" care homes. Most, if not all, in this area are "Private" in that they are run for profit. The "Private" care homes take both self funders and those with no means to pay, the latter being funded by the authority. Private care homes are the likes of BUPA, Nufield and other providers. They charge much higher fees and will be 100% self funders.

In a "Private" home, if the owners want to make £3K per month per unit, the local authority will be buying places for say £2K per unit. The owners charge the self funders £4K, so as well as paying for their own care, they are paying 33% of someone else's. This is 100% true and it is the only way that care for the elderly can continue at the moment. This situation continues until the cash-cow resident has been rinsed down to £20K worth of assets at which point state funding kicks in.

This is why Social Services hate people paying for care with BUPA and the other similar providers who only take self-funders and not state funded residents. They won’t discount state places and make up the shortfall from the self funders. In my aunt's case, they went to the BUPA care home and presented a list of fictitious ailments and disabilities and actively tried to persuade them that they weren't capable of catering for her specific needs. They were & they did for the final 4 years of her happy life.

I think my brother would have put the social worker in a care home at one stage, had he been able to get his hands on him, but we pursued a complaint against him instead. We had documents to evidence the fact that the social worker had lied, but the management weren't interested. They wrote to say he had been "reprimanded" which in social worker speak is FA, lessons learnt, and other meaningless words. They are Nazis and behave with arrogance.

But to summarise, care for the elderly is a scandal, it's disgusting, but we don't complain about it because it doesn't affect us....yet, and those suffering and affected by this vile profiteering system are too vulnerable to complain. The whole system should be run by and funded by the NHS in its entirety.

I don't think I can do anything about it except look after number one (me & the wife) by making sure we have a plan to try and fund ourselves out of this misery if the time comes.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: oldgroaner

50Hertz

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 2, 2019
2,199
2,403
There are 3 arguments there.

The social care budget

Inheritance tax

badly run care homes.

Labour has said in their manifesto that they will deal with all of these.

I have no problem with inheritance being tax free up £250k. I am happy for the resultant tax surplus to be used to pay for social care for the elderly.

Labour will stop the privatisation of the NHS and bring these grubby privately owned grief pits into public ownership.

Can you tell me what your gang intend to?
My gang will oversee the rise in the number of grief pits, maximising the yield from each profit unit by providing the minimum levels of care, shelter and sustenance until they have been bled dry. At this point, they will want them dead, their usefulness will have been exhausted.

Pretty much what its going to happen regardless of who wins the GE. Awful.
 
Last edited:

Fingers

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 9, 2016
3,373
1,552
46
My gang will oversee the rise in the number of grief pits, maximising the yield from each profit unit by providing the minimum levels of care, shelter and sustenance until they have been bled dry. At this point, they will want them dead, their usefulness will have been exhausted.

Pretty much what its going to happen regardless of who wins the GE. Awful.

Rubbish
 

50Hertz

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 2, 2019
2,199
2,403
You can live in hope, it won’t do you any harm.

You’ve not had anyone wanting to advertise one of those trolleys yet, have you? Could do with it soon, I’ve got the Vicar coming for dinner. Cheers.
 
Last edited:

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
Just listened to Hancock saying there is a cure for dementia on the horizon, but I suspect no cure for so many people being taken in by Tory lies

Labour should put some money into research to find out why people persist on doing that despite the all too obvious fact that every Conservative government only achieves one thing.

They manage to be more incompetent, lying and corrupt than the last one.
Corbyn will get over criticism of his neutral position as new Shock and horror propaganda comes out on number 10, and this move of his could serve him well.

No matter what sort of a mess Brexit turns into, he can say
"Not me Guv! talk to the other fella!"

And after time passes history is likely to remember his stance more kindly that it does the leave faction in all it's sorry squalor and corruption.

The fate of Brexit shouldn't be down to a popularity contest between two men, as it is, if he can negotiate a better deal, then how can anyone criticise offering that deal to the people for them to decide?
Clearly the politicians believe that the public is too stupid to make it's own decision without a figurehead to lead them.
Such arrogance!
They are liable to get a total shock if Brexit goes ahead and the people don't like it, the public will prove in exemplary fashion it can come not merely to a decision, but act on it without needing a cheerleader.
 
Last edited:

Fingers

Esteemed Pedelecer
Feb 9, 2016
3,373
1,552
46
You can live in hope, it won’t do you any harm.

You’ve not had anyone wanting to advertise one of those trolleys yet, have you? Could do with it soon, I’ve got the Vicar coming for dinner. Cheers.

I did but it was from a Nigerian family.

I didn't think I would bother you as I know what you think of Africans in general let alone Nigerians as your previous comments have indicated
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 50Hertz

Advertisers