Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.

Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.

Author
Discussion

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
markcoznottz said:
WinstonWolf said:
Integroo said:
WinstonWolf said:
Then you'll know they would die or cause harm to those around them if they weren't in there.
I am not shocked you have 70 odd thousand posts. I won't be responding to you anymore.
That's fine with me, perhaps we can get back on topic and give the OP the advice they asked for now.
Another nickgnome or countdown, you will never ever get an agreement or respect from him, he HAS to be right, because he thinks he has the higher moral ground.
Hopefully the OP will get the advice they asked for now. I notice in another thread someone's care cost is coming in at £200K per annum. People simply can't fund that, it's why we have the NHS.
Yep, if we need to put up taxes then so be it. It's quite obvious it has become a platform for left people to hate anyone who has benefited from house price inflation. As a seoerate issue If we have to adjust inheritance tax then let's have an honest debate about that. People in general respect that tax has to be paid, but they want to hang on to what they have accrued in life, what's rightfully theirs, can you blame them.

phumy

4,483 posts

178 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
plasticpig said:
daimlerv8 said:
Do you actually know a person with dementia?
It's horrible to watch,helpless,whilst a loved and respected parent becomes a shambling wreck......
Visiting a care home with a wing full of dementia sufferers is a very persuasive argument for assisted suicide. I would rather top myself than potentially living like that for several years.


I visit my wife, who has Dementia, in her care home regularly and i can agree with plastic on this one.

Countdown

22,978 posts

137 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Yep, if we need to put up taxes then so be it.
No. I don't think taxpayers should have to fund the costs of care if the person has assets they can use to pay for their own care.

markcoznottz said:
It's quite obvious it has become a platform for left people to hate anyone who has benefited from house price inflation. As a seoerate issue If we have to adjust inheritance tax then let's have an honest debate about that. People in general respect that tax has to be paid, but they want to hang on to what they have accrued in life, what's rightfully theirs, can you blame them.
Why is IHT different to any other tax? As well as "hanging on to what Ive accrued over life" I'd also like to "hang on" to what I accrued last month.

And just to point out, the "person who accrued it over his or her life" isn't the one who suffers financially from IHT - it's the people getting the inheritance. Possibly the same types who are happy to stick mum and dad in a LA care home as long as their inheritance is safe.

Edited by Countdown on Wednesday 15th May 12:53

covmutley

1,722 posts

131 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Agreed. Or live in Scotland. Care is just one more excuse to tax people who have paid more tax than any group in living history, plus ni. .
Hang on, so you are also now saying that you shouldn't have to pay for it, or pay for it through taxes!

Please tell me how it would be paid for then? Do you think it is 'free'? You seem to nkw be on Corbyns level of economic understanding.

phumy

4,483 posts

178 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Isaac Hunt said:
Can someone explain to me the difference between a stroke and dementia.

I have known people who's parents have suffered a stroke who have been put into paid for long term care and not been forced to sell their home despite being the only surviving parent.

Dementia is possibly similar in effects, but a gradual decline.
Dementia is a disease that wastes the brain over time and that creeps up on the sufferes for maybe 5 to 10 years before it actually shows itself and by then its far to late to treat and fix as its set in. A stoke is none of that and its not a disease.

Advertisement

Oakey

23,970 posts

157 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
covmutley said:
Hang on, so you are also now saying that you shouldn't have to pay for it, or pay for it through taxes!

Please tell me how it would be paid for then? Do you think it is 'free'? You seem to nkw be on Corbyns level of economic understanding.
No no, he said he's happy for taxes to go up to pay for it whilst at the same time complaining about being taxed more than anyone else in history.

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Countdown said:
markcoznottz said:
Yep, if we need to put up taxes then so be it.
No. I don't think taxpayers should have to fund the costs of care if the person has assets they can use to pay for their own care.

markcoznottz said:
It's quite obvious it has become a platform for left people to hate anyone who has benefited from house price inflation. As a seoerate issue If we have to adjust inheritance tax then let's have an honest debate about that. People in general respect that tax has to be paid, but they want to hang on to what they have accrued in life, what's rightfully theirs, can you blame them.
Why is IHT different to any other tax? As well as "hanging on to what Ive accrued over life" I'd also like to "hang on" to what I accrued last month.

And just to point out, the "person who accrued it over his or her life" isn't the one who suffers financially from IHT - it's the people getting the inheritance. Possibly the same types who are happy to stick mum and dad in a LA care home as long as their inheritance is safe.

Edited by Countdown on Wednesday 15th May 12:53
Because income is taxed either paye or self assessment etc. Someone's assets, i.e. thier net worth has already been taxed numerous times. They effectively 'own' what they legally have accrued. If the estate incurs IHT it is paid, these people have done thier bit. They have fully complied with tax law.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Because income is taxed either paye or self assessment etc. Someone's assets, i.e. thier net worth has already been taxed numerous times. They effectively 'own' what they legally have accrued. If the estate incurs IHT it is paid, these people have done thier bit. They have fully complied with tax law.
People have to buy lots of things with their taxed income - food, clothes, cars, rent, mortgage. Paying for their end of life care when they are past the point of no return is no different.

Edited by Integroo on Wednesday 15th May 15:20

SpeckledJim

18,235 posts

194 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Because income is taxed either paye or self assessment etc. Someone's assets, i.e. thier net worth has already been taxed numerous times. They effectively 'own' what they legally have accrued. If the estate incurs IHT it is paid, these people have done thier bit. They have fully complied with tax law.
Are you as cross about Council Tax (a blatant leftie asset grab!!!111) based on the value of your house as you are about paying for your own care?

It's the same, isn't it?

Little money, little house, little care costs, little council tax

Lots of money, big house, lots of care costs, lots of council tax.

Countdown

22,978 posts

137 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Because income is taxed either paye or self assessment etc. Someone's assets, i.e. thier net worth has already been taxed numerous times. They effectively 'own' what they legally have accrued. If the estate incurs IHT it is paid, these people have done thier bit. They have fully complied with tax law.
Lots of things are taxed twice, or even three times whereas the increase in the value of somebody's home (usually the biggest part of their estate) doesn't get taxed at all whilst they're alive.

FWIW I'm reasonably sure that the type of people who try to avoid paying care home fees would also be the type who try to avoid paying IHT


markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Countdown said:
markcoznottz said:
Because income is taxed either paye or self assessment etc. Someone's assets, i.e. thier net worth has already been taxed numerous times. They effectively 'own' what they legally have accrued. If the estate incurs IHT it is paid, these people have done thier bit. They have fully complied with tax law.
Lots of things are taxed twice, or even three times whereas the increase in the value of somebody's home (usually the biggest part of their estate) doesn't get taxed at all whilst they're alive.

FWIW I'm reasonably sure that the type of people who try to avoid paying care home fees would also be the type who try to avoid paying IHT

According to the ons,

'As a consequence, the Government’s revenues from IHT are predicted to grow in an almost linear fashion. Where is this growth likely to come from? Hands up those with estates worth over £1 million. According to HMRC, they already pay around three times as much IHT in total as all the estates worth under a million pounds, up from twice as much in 2009'


Can't see much IHT avoidance there. Why would the increase in an asset be taxed? Presumably to keep you in work. By the way, you being a professional, you would know that tax avoidance isn't illegal.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Lots of things are taxed twice, or even three times whereas the increase in the value of somebody's home (usually the biggest part of their estate) doesn't get taxed at all whilst they're alive.

FWIW I'm reasonably sure that the type of people who try to avoid paying care home fees would also be the type who try to avoid paying IHT

According to the ons,

'As a consequence, the Government’s revenues from IHT are predicted to grow in an almost linear fashion. Where is this growth likely to come from? Hands up those with estates worth over £1 million. According to HMRC, they already pay around three times as much IHT in total as all the estates worth under a million pounds, up from twice as much in 2009'


Can't see much IHT avoidance there. Why would the increase in an asset be taxed? Presumably to keep you in work. By the way, you being a professional, you would know that tax avoidance isn't illegal.
Shock horror, those with large estates pay a lot more inheritance tax. That statement does not suggest inheritance tax is not avoided, not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.

selmahoose

3,627 posts

52 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
SpeckledJim said:
Are you as cross about Council Tax (a blatant leftie asset grab!!!111) based on the value of your house as you are about paying for your own care?

It's the same, isn't it?

Little money, little house, little care costs, little council tax

Lots of money, big house, lots of care costs, lots of council tax.
The thing is, if you live in a posh street the poor little millionaire pays the same CT as the multimillionaire and the billionaire.

What's 'fair' about that? And if you think it IS fair, why not deal with income tax the same way with a ceiling on the maximum payable?

We're all sponging off the rich given how much more per capita tax they're paying (apart from the hyper mega rich who pay fk all)

DonkeyApple

33,221 posts

110 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
Back in the olden days;
ie the last century.....

There were two types of care home

a)operated by the local authority...for those with little or no assets to pay for care.
b)privately run care homes for those that did not 'fit' group A.

Of course,somebody decided that group A should be done away with,and now we are left with the current shambles where 'granny farming' is solely a commercial business.
Nothing has changed other than A is now operated under PFI like State schools and most other State funded facilities.

Option B has expanded enormously as the number of people needing the service and with the means to pay has expanded enormously.

Most people pay for B by selling their house. All the State is saying is that they aren’t going to pick up the tab for anyone who has the means to pay their own way.

People seem extremely confused about what is a very simple thing to understand. The State does not exist to pay for people who have the means to pay for themselves.

Meanwhile, most people are busy selling their homes to raise the money to pay for their care needs. And whether they need the money they are still selling their homes as they no longer need them.

But a few people seem to think that they don’t have to pay their own bills and that everyone else should pay for them so they can keep their money. These people are morally wrong, greedy little chiselers like anyone who tries to leach of the State. It’s the exact same principal as people who work for cash and claim benefits.

Countdown

22,978 posts

137 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
According to the ons,

'As a consequence, the Government’s revenues from IHT are predicted to grow in an almost linear fashion. Where is this growth likely to come from? Hands up those with estates worth over £1 million. According to HMRC, they already pay around three times as much IHT in total as all the estates worth under a million pounds, up from twice as much in 2009'


Can't see much IHT avoidance there. Why would the increase in an asset be taxed? Presumably to keep you in work. By the way, you being a professional, you would know that tax avoidance isn't illegal.
This is painful.

1. The reason why those with estates worth over £1m pay the bulk of IHT is because the IHT-exempt allowance is up to £1m

2. My comment about the “increase in asset being taxed” was in response to your suggestion that the wealth people had accrued during their working lives had already been taxed Wealth accruing from house price increases hasn’t been taxed and is never taxed during the Owner’s lifetime.

3. I never said tax avoidance was illegal. However you cannot calculate how much tax was avoided (or even evaded) by looking at tax receipts.

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Wednesday 15th May
quotequote all
Countdown said:
markcoznottz said:
According to the ons,

'As a consequence, the Government’s revenues from IHT are predicted to grow in an almost linear fashion. Where is this growth likely to come from? Hands up those with estates worth over £1 million. According to HMRC, they already pay around three times as much IHT in total as all the estates worth under a million pounds, up from twice as much in 2009'


Can't see much IHT avoidance there. Why would the increase in an asset be taxed? Presumably to keep you in work. By the way, you being a professional, you would know that tax avoidance isn't illegal.
This is painful.

1. The reason why those with estates worth over £1m pay the bulk of IHT is because the IHT-exempt allowance is up to £1m

2. My comment about the “increase in asset being taxed” was in response to your suggestion that the wealth people had accrued during their working lives had already been taxed Wealth accruing from house price increases hasn’t been taxed and is never taxed during the Owner’s lifetime.

3. I never said tax avoidance was illegal. However you cannot calculate how much tax was avoided (or even evaded) by looking at tax receipts.
I was replying to a comment about IHT increasing year on year . The new £1 million threshold is smoke and mirrors according to most in the industry, quite involved. I cannot labour my point any more about asset growth. Maybe that's just me, but if someone buys an asset from taxed income, then that's just life as far as I'm concerned if it goes up. If it truly was that easy we would all be property magnates. We all talk about London/se house prices as the be all, but away from there margin on btl has been poor for years, and is increasingly hard for the amateur, if not near impossible. You talk about house price increase wealth not being taxed as a bad thing, I think it's sinister some of the language used around this, 'undeserved' etc. I can't remember people with negative equity getting rebates when they were left out of pocket.

DonkeyApple

33,221 posts

110 months

Thursday
quotequote all
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tax/inheritance/cut-ca...

It’s from a right wing publication so is written around the premise of individuals paying their own bills which might not suite the Dianne Abbots who expect everyone else to pay for them so they can keep their money.

croyde

15,416 posts

171 months

Thursday
quotequote all





So if you happen to have £23k spare, you fund your care, but according to amounts quoted on this thread, £23k will barely get you a year of being looked after, if that.

What happens when the £23k is gone?





DonkeyApple

33,221 posts

110 months

Thursday
quotequote all
croyde said:


So if you happen to have £23k spare, you fund your care, but according to amounts quoted on this thread, £23k will barely get you a year of being looked after, if that.

What happens when the £23k is gone?
The two money pots take over, either local authority or NHS depending on the particular situation.

However, if you have moved in to the top floor of the Dorchester while paying your own way then those who are going to be footing your bill going forward will not cover that tab but have a fixed amount great they pay and you will need to downgrade to one of their facilities.

I would heartily recommend anyone who isn’t paying as much as they humanly can into their pensions but preferring to use that money to buy fripperies today to go and visit one of these warehouses that process humans for the purpose of extracting anorofot from the State payment. I’d wager that it will soon make you appreciate one’s priorities in life.

croyde

15,416 posts

171 months

Thursday
quotequote all
I think voluntary euthanasia has to be made legal. I'd rather enjoy myself whilst relatively young and then just pop in a booth, rather than struggle through old age worrying about money and health.

I'm in my late 50s, business is drying up, still have kids to get through Uni and if I make it to 67, I may get about £20k a year including State Pension (if it still exists).

I already feel miserable thinking about it.

My dear old mum lives in Holland and has a nice life and can even afford trips abroad once a year. Doubt I'll be doing that at her age.
"