Care home - protecting assets
Discussion
philv said:
egor110 said:
philv said:
It has already been pointed out very clearly by soneone in this thread that taking assets such as a house to pay for care is actually subsidising those that cannot pay.
So, why are you still here?
It has been quite a helpful thread, except for your nasty bile.
How so ?So, why are you still here?
It has been quite a helpful thread, except for your nasty bile.
You meet the managers in the decent homes and if your not self funded your simply not going to get a room .
At the very least, you are not scrounging off tne state as was unpleasantly put forward.
It comes from pension, family payments, etc.
So to try and protect family assets isn't exactly tne crime alledged above.
Edited by philv on Sunday 26th March 14:25
Edited by philv on Sunday 26th March 14:26
I'd be interested how many of you saying you'd be happy to send your parents to the cheapest option to protect your inheritance have actually started the ball rolling and actually visited homes?
egor110 said:
philv said:
egor110 said:
philv said:
It has already been pointed out very clearly by soneone in this thread that taking assets such as a house to pay for care is actually subsidising those that cannot pay.
So, why are you still here?
It has been quite a helpful thread, except for your nasty bile.
How so ?So, why are you still here?
It has been quite a helpful thread, except for your nasty bile.
You meet the managers in the decent homes and if your not self funded your simply not going to get a room .
At the very least, you are not scrounging off tne state as was unpleasantly put forward.
It comes from pension, family payments, etc.
So to try and protect family assets isn't exactly tne crime alledged above.
Edited by philv on Sunday 26th March 14:25
Edited by philv on Sunday 26th March 14:26
I'd be interested how many of you saying you'd be happy to send your parents to the cheapest option to protect your inheritance have actually started the ball rolling and actually visited homes?
Equally, it's the same staff pool all homes draw from of qualified and unqualified carers/nurses - so I don't think it's particulalry fair to knock them and nor do I think the lowest grades of staff in expensive homes get paid any more than they do in chaep homes - and most often they will be the ones providing the hands-on, one to one care.
Again, is there actually anything such as a 'council' home anymore?
It may just be our experience, but we were looking for a specialist EMI elderly menatally infirm home and what people call 'council' homes were the ones which would take non-self-funding patients.
Many of them didn't want solely council funded patients simply because it limited the weekly fee they could charge to what the council would pay.
The homes that took 'council' patients were the same homes that took self-funding patients.
There weren't 'workhouses' for the poor and glitzy hotels for the rich - it really ain't like that unless you've got megabucks.
We only found one 'bad' home, where we wandered round unaccompanied.
Our relative was self-funding - it made no difference to the quality of the home. In the end it was the quality of the staff.
She died before she used up all her own money and was paying more than the council capped fee would have been.
It made no difference to the home where the money came from but she paid a couple of hundred a month more than the council would have paid.
That probably meant she got the room ahead of a non-self-funding patient.
It seems logical to infer that the extra the self-funding residents pay, evens out the 'lower rate' paid by the council for non-self-funding.
This statement is totally wrong
' Equally, it's the same staff pool all homes draw from of qualified and unqualified carers/nurses - so I don't think it's particulalry fair to knock them and nor do I think the lowest grades of staff in expensive homes get paid any more than they do in chaep homes - and most often they will be the ones providing the hands-on, one to one care.'
The best homes treat there staff better they are on better pay , and have more time to care for the resident rather than constantly clock watching.
The managers will have staff on agency who go to the good homes and ask to go back full/part time for that one home , because being agency they've seen the gulf between s
t homes and nice ones.
The flipside is the managers of the nicer places will not employ people who have no interest in caring but just need a job , they can afford to be picky.
Like i said god knows how many pages ago , look at the staff turn over , the decent places have very little and rarely need to advertise for staff.
' Equally, it's the same staff pool all homes draw from of qualified and unqualified carers/nurses - so I don't think it's particulalry fair to knock them and nor do I think the lowest grades of staff in expensive homes get paid any more than they do in chaep homes - and most often they will be the ones providing the hands-on, one to one care.'
The best homes treat there staff better they are on better pay , and have more time to care for the resident rather than constantly clock watching.
The managers will have staff on agency who go to the good homes and ask to go back full/part time for that one home , because being agency they've seen the gulf between s
t homes and nice ones.The flipside is the managers of the nicer places will not employ people who have no interest in caring but just need a job , they can afford to be picky.
Like i said god knows how many pages ago , look at the staff turn over , the decent places have very little and rarely need to advertise for staff.
egor110 said:
The best homes....
My mum had visions of the kind of the place you see on BBC sit-coms where evryone is sitting around drinking G&T's, dancing etc. Maybe such places exist, but we never saw one - these days people are supported in their own homes and going into care is a last resort.Mum was in a very nice independent place but it was run more as hobby by a couple of ex-nurses. They charged everyone the council rate and maintained high staffing ratios but it wasn't making sense financially and they bailed out.
There's a smart looking place in a former country house near where we live in Cheshire but that's run by one of the big groups and, while its reports are good, there's always a comment about staffing being limited.
Sheepshanks said:
egor110 said:
The best homes....
My mum had visions of the kind of the place you see on BBC sit-coms where evryone is sitting around drinking G&T's, dancing etc. Maybe such places exist, but we never saw one - these days people are supported in their own homes and going into care is a last resort.Mum was in a very nice independent place but it was run more as hobby by a couple of ex-nurses. They charged everyone the council rate and maintained high staffing ratios but it wasn't making sense financially and they bailed out.
There's a smart looking place in a former country house near where we live in Cheshire but that's run by one of the big groups and, while its reports are good, there's always a comment about staffing being limited.
I'm in Somerset but in a 10 mile radius i could take you to homes from all ends of the scale , from big corporation homes , british legion homes to the local council assisted homes.
When they go in if there not to bad then some of them are like nice hotels , set in big country grounds, really nice food , lots of outings but as there dementia gets worse and they start wandering into other peoples rooms or off the grounds then they'll have to be moved into a locked dementia wing.
Re the big group home you mentioned the staffing being limited , was that during daytime or night ? it seemed fairly normal to have just 1 staff member on for a night shift , at my mrs place they have 1 on in the dementia wing and 2 net door in the care home but if the s
t hits the fan they can call on the other staff.Also don't instantly judge a place by how nice it appears , we looked at a stunning place but the dementia care wasn't all that .
People with dementia fiddle a lot so you can get blankets with buttons and stuff that they can fiddle with , the staff in this really nice place had no idea what we were talking about despite it being pretty industry standard stuff.
If your parents served in the forces well worth going down the british legion route.
philv said:
TFP said:
If only someone other than you understood this bile.
You're an intellectual Pygmy.
It has already been pointed out very clearly by soneone in this thread that taking assets such as a house to pay for care is actually subsidising those that cannot pay.You're an intellectual Pygmy.
So, why are you still here?
It has been quite a helpful thread, except for your nasty bile.
It's all about protecting your inheritance and getting the state I.e. Everyone else to pay.
All this rubbish about 'he worked hard', 'he paid his taxes' etc just aren't relevant I'm afraid. It might be emotive for you because of the people concerned, and the circumstances, and probably because you have also already started to see this as money you are due. The fact is this is not like inheritance tax, a tax after death with fairly substantial, and soon to be increasing thresholds. This is a post death tax, after the individual has had to satisfy all of their lifetime needs, which includes care. You, and others, have conflated the two scenarios (along with other tax planning) but the only real common ground is that it affects the same sum of money - a sum that you have basically identified as being yours.
Why should someone with a reasonable level of assets not pay towards their own care? I'm sorry if that affects your potential legacy, it's their own money paying for their own needs. You would prefer that everyone else pays more to further subsidise this cost would you? And this would take effect either through higher overall taxation or lower spending in other budgets.
There's a suggestion that anyone that you perceive to be wealthy hasn't played fair. What a crock. What exactly do you have to support this? not everyone above the threshold that means you perceive them to be wealthy is a tax dodging celeb, footballer or shark for the corporate world. Most pay their taxes in full. It's convenient to use the cases you hear about in the media to support such a view, but it's pretty lazy and it's wrong. Just as a for instance, check out how much tax a self made man like Peter Hargreaves pays. he's not the exception. It doesn't pay to report about people who pay their due level of taxation without quibble. It simply doesn't generate sales or clicks.
There's also an assumption that all of these other people that can't pay their own way in terms is f care costs have squandered all of their money, been spendthrifts or were not responsible enough to save during their lifetime for future needs such as care. There may be some where this is true, but there are are also those where this was never going to be possible due to their living standards and socioeconomic position. It suits you to characterise them all as the former.
So, sad as it may be to you to see your inheritance diminished by care needs, your parents have such needs so why shouldn't they use their money to pay for them?
egor110 said:
This statement is totally wrong
' Equally, it's the same staff pool all homes draw from of qualified and unqualified carers/nurses - so I don't think it's particulalry fair to knock them and nor do I think the lowest grades of staff in expensive homes get paid any more than they do in chaep homes - and most often they will be the ones providing the hands-on, one to one care.'
The best homes treat there staff better they are on better pay , and have more time to care for the resident rather than constantly clock watching.
The managers will have staff on agency who go to the good homes and ask to go back full/part time for that one home , because being agency they've seen the gulf between st homes and nice ones.
The flipside is the managers of the nicer places will not employ people who have no interest in caring but just need a job , they can afford to be picky.
Like i said god knows how many pages ago , look at the staff turn over , the decent places have very little and rarely need to advertise for staff.
I wish I could be convinced. Largely most staff in the care sector will be good.' Equally, it's the same staff pool all homes draw from of qualified and unqualified carers/nurses - so I don't think it's particulalry fair to knock them and nor do I think the lowest grades of staff in expensive homes get paid any more than they do in chaep homes - and most often they will be the ones providing the hands-on, one to one care.'
The best homes treat there staff better they are on better pay , and have more time to care for the resident rather than constantly clock watching.
The managers will have staff on agency who go to the good homes and ask to go back full/part time for that one home , because being agency they've seen the gulf between s
t homes and nice ones.The flipside is the managers of the nicer places will not employ people who have no interest in caring but just need a job , they can afford to be picky.
Like i said god knows how many pages ago , look at the staff turn over , the decent places have very little and rarely need to advertise for staff.
But like any badly paid job, there is a limited number of people willing to do it and even fewer people who are then qualified to do it.
There are no 'angels' any more. People work near where they live.
egor110 said:
Re the big group home you mentioned the staffing being limited , was that during daytime or night ? it seemed fairly normal to have just 1 staff member on for a night shift , at my mrs place they have 1 on in the dementia wing and 2 net door in the care home but if the st hits the fan they can call on the other staff.
It was just comments in the report and doesn't specify timing.t hits the fan they can call on the other staff.I have to say that having one member of staff, even with two more next door, doesn't sound right. In the last place my Mum was in, just a care home, nothing more intensive, they had three staff during the night for max 25 residents.
TFP said:
TooMany2cvs said:
TFP said:
It's all about protecting your inheritance and getting the state I.e. Everyone else to pay.
TBF, it's not "the state", but the council tax payers of the local area who would be subsidising the OP's inheritance.Another possible option is can OP rent out his parents house to part fund the care home with the objective in trying to avoid loss of asset whilst still paying in full(or "morally" correct).
Another option is how about. Using a bigger house with an annex ie you sell up your parents sell up and you buy a big pad together. You have them very close - which might not be what is acceptable for both you and the Mrs.
I'm pretty sure investigations are made into asset transfers within x period of going into care clearly from the reason to try to avoid it. So you might be within that timeframe so a moot point.
Personally neither of my parents want to go into a care home / always said it's the last thing they would want. However who knows life always ends up giving you different scenarios to deal with. We've stated categorically to my parents it is their money to do with it as they please and want them to ensure they spend whatever is necessary to have a great happy life (blow it all on holidays whatever we've no issue and honestly been totally open about no inheritance from them. I think they want to give to grand kids but hen the same applies it's them first.).
Another option is how about. Using a bigger house with an annex ie you sell up your parents sell up and you buy a big pad together. You have them very close - which might not be what is acceptable for both you and the Mrs.
I'm pretty sure investigations are made into asset transfers within x period of going into care clearly from the reason to try to avoid it. So you might be within that timeframe so a moot point.
Personally neither of my parents want to go into a care home / always said it's the last thing they would want. However who knows life always ends up giving you different scenarios to deal with. We've stated categorically to my parents it is their money to do with it as they please and want them to ensure they spend whatever is necessary to have a great happy life (blow it all on holidays whatever we've no issue and honestly been totally open about no inheritance from them. I think they want to give to grand kids but hen the same applies it's them first.).
Sheepshanks said:
TFP said:
TooMany2cvs said:
TFP said:
It's all about protecting your inheritance and getting the state I.e. Everyone else to pay.
TBF, it's not "the state", but the council tax payers of the local area who would be subsidising the OP's inheritance.Can't see the benefit in debating which pound raised is spent on what service, precepts etc...
Doesn't change the point.
Armitage.Shanks said:
Having read all this I'm rather glad my mrs convinced me to buy a house for her parents so they could sell theirs and take the money to spend it while they can. They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it 
Which is all very well but when they need specialist care and can no longer live in this rent free property how are they going to fund there care home or will you just stick them in the cheapest ?egor110 said:
Armitage.Shanks said:
Having read all this I'm rather glad my mrs convinced me to buy a house for her parents so they could sell theirs and take the money to spend it while they can. They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it
Which is all very well but when they need specialist care and can no longer live in this rent free property how are they going to fund there care home or will you just stick them in the cheapest ?They have not given any cash to AShanks. He has bought a house his in laws now rent it they sold their family home and are spending that money any way they choose.
They might be potless come care home time or no different to now.
Heck at this rate there will be some stating we didn't use a card home at all nor drawn any state pension as they died ore that trigger age
Welshbeef said:
egor110 said:
Armitage.Shanks said:
Having read all this I'm rather glad my mrs convinced me to buy a house for her parents so they could sell theirs and take the money to spend it while they can. They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it
Which is all very well but when they need specialist care and can no longer live in this rent free property how are they going to fund there care home or will you just stick them in the cheapest ?They have not given any cash to AShanks. He has bought a house his in laws now rent it they sold their family home and are spending that money any way they choose.
They might be potless come care home time or no different to now.
Heck at this rate there will be some stating we didn't use a card home at all nor drawn any state pension as they died ore that trigger age
Armitage.Shanks said:
They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it
footnote said:
Welshbeef said:
egor110 said:
Armitage.Shanks said:
Having read all this I'm rather glad my mrs convinced me to buy a house for her parents so they could sell theirs and take the money to spend it while they can. They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it
Which is all very well but when they need specialist care and can no longer live in this rent free property how are they going to fund there care home or will you just stick them in the cheapest ?They have not given any cash to AShanks. He has bought a house his in laws now rent it they sold their family home and are spending that money any way they choose.
They might be potless come care home time or no different to now.
Heck at this rate there will be some stating we didn't use a card home at all nor drawn any state pension as they died ore that trigger age
My point was relating to footnote.
Armitage.Shanks said:
They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it
TFP said:
philv said:
TFP said:
If only someone other than you understood this bile.
You're an intellectual Pygmy.
It has already been pointed out very clearly by soneone in this thread that taking assets such as a house to pay for care is actually subsidising those that cannot pay.You're an intellectual Pygmy.
So, why are you still here?
It has been quite a helpful thread, except for your nasty bile.
It's all about protecting your inheritance and getting the state I.e. Everyone else to pay.
If you're going to solely address the moral issues and if you're fundamentally opposed to paying tax because all tax means subsidising other people (doesn't it?) then you have a bigger problem to address than elderly care.
Shouldn't you equally be criticising child benefit, another non-means tested benefit which contributed to the wealth of his parents, paid for by others?
All the money I paid in tax for the NHS so others could have IVF on the free, could actually have maternity care on the free, while I know they could have afforded to pay for it - let's put an end to that?
Same with bloody schools - waste of my money. Everybody who doesn't have kids again subsidising those who do - feckless beggars - they should pay for their own schools - if they can afford to shag - they can bloody well pay for the consequences.
All the money we all have to pay in tax to pay for hospitals and schoools and roads and yet from which we personally don't benefit (we seemingly think) to the tune to which we pay in - poor us!
You know a country really is just like Mum's purse. Money in and money out and Mum decides what to spend it on.
And if you want Mum to not fund elderly care because it's taking away from your pocket money budget then Mum might say to you - okay, but if I'm going to take this away from grandad, then I think I might cut back on your sister's milk and rusks budget and I'll have extra money to spend on a new lawnmower for Dad.
There's no point in pompously moralising at people who are intending to act within the law.
His individual actions will not reduce your tax bill.
There's no political will to deal with elderly care at the moment.
I'm worried about what will happen when the young people of today, who can't afford starter homes now, never mnd large family homes and 2 car garages, I'm worried about what will happen when they haven't got retirement bungalows to sell to make any contribution to their care.
Who is going to pay then?
Who's going to pay for their rent in retirement, never mind their care home bills.
Without widespread home ownership, the bill to the state for retirement housing benefit is going to be astronomical - and really, that really isn't affordable.
If you're one of them young people now - then you'll really have somethng to moan about in the future - but I suspect you'll look afer yourself just dandy - and feck the rest of them!
Welshbeef said:
My point was relating to footnote.
Couldn't work out what was being said with all the quotes.Isn't Armitage saying they pay him rent for the house he now owns?
Sorry, no , he's not. He says they sold theirs, kept the money, and maintain a house he bought.
A charitable gesture beyond most people I would guess, and a great brag!
Edited by footnote on Monday 27th March 07:57
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff