Reply With Quote1.25% is hardly clobbered. and if you take a mix of salary and divs you're still paying less tax overall (even allowing for CT, NICS and IT) than an employee earning the same income.Originally Posted by Toadstool
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
how do you know they did not earn it? Les say my wife's grandfather (97) is currently living in his home, and my wife's auntie looks after him - the burden of his welfare and health is falling on her ands her alone. not the state.
why should the state get the house when its not contributed towards his care at all, when the auntie has shouldered the burden in its entirety?
1.25% is hardly clobbered. and if you take a mix of salary and divs you're still paying less tax overall (even allowing for CT, NICS and IT) than an employee earning the same income.
given it is unlikely your mother has paid enough NICs in her lifetime to cover her social care, who do you think should pay for your mothers care, if it came to that?
We went through years of austerity where so many things were cut. Is this latest announcement proof that there is no more left to cut, even that austerity was the wrong course of action?
No, it's proof that the NHS is a bottomless money pit.
Without paid holidays and pensions.
For me it's a lifestyle choice - and also most of my clients wouldn't want to engage with me in an employee-employer relationship.
This is true strange times
You think that the councils are in a position to pay good money for care ?
It's a cut throat dog eat dog bidding process and the council award contracts to the cheapest bidder
Home Instead, Right at-home are expensive and don't figure very much with local authority care
Which is why people who can afford it go for them and ordinary folk get a dreadful service
What about the cuts to non NHS services ? .......roads , libraries , public transport grants ?
There lies the issue I feel we should be braver and perhaps set out some new standards of NHS treatment so the money flows to the real issue like Social Care , Cancer etc , we need to look at A&E abuse ie weekend drunks that costs both treatment time and re, emergencies , those soft treatments like ear syringing , skin tag removals that can be treated by delivered over the counter remedies , thankfully Viagra is now being purchased , you have self responsibilities of ones health such as weight gain form poor eating habits , smoking , lack of exercise ,drinking drug abuse , some of which does is genuinely and deserved help , but not everyone .
So its not the service providers at fault its the council ergo the taxpayer who hasn't given enough budget.
Perhapsa few less duvet days and other such follys suxh as flexi hours could help increase the councils social care budget.
https://youtu.be/x0MBrfqwdEg
Mum passed away October 2019. At that point, dad became sole house owner. He went into care February 2019. His inheritance and savings (to pay for care) would have run out (£23250 allowed for in England) roughly March this year. So, empty house had to be sold (completed January this year) to pay around £1100 a week for food accomodation and nursing. In any calculations for assets, a house is divvied up 50/50 between spouses. Mum was cared for at home and she paid the maximum of £90 a week which was means tested (in Cardiff). Not sure if we would have had to go down the differed option on the house to pay for mum's residential care if dad had still been living in the house and Mum reached a point of having £50k in assets. I do vaguely remember asking the question 2 years ago and seem to recall that "no" house cannot be sold to pay for care if occupied by a spouses. Best seek specialist advice on that one if it applies. As it was, Mum died at home.
I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Am I missing a joke?
they may have paid in, but they have not paid in enough. when current pensioners started work, life expectancy ergo state pension costs were much less than they are today. Typically you could expect to live for say 5-10 years after retirement. Your NICS/pension contributions were costed accordingly. However, as people are living much longer than the 5-10 years, what they have paid in is not enough.
The advice two years ago was correct - the LA can't force the house to be sold if there's a spouse living there, and the whole house value is disregarded. If your dad was still living there and mum went down to £50,000 in other assets they would still have ignored the house completely.
Best planning for those looking to safeguard the property is for spouses NOT to leave the house directly to each other, it leaves the surving partner with 100% of the house which effectively is counted against them in any care assessments.
That's proper 'man maths'!
It's not the same money that's taxed each time! Anything taken from the company will either be salary (potentially liable to the new extra NI) or dividends (which will be subject to the new NI) ... if it's shared between you and Mrs Toadstool it will be 1.5% each on half the amount, so still only 1.5% of the whole amount in total!
Central government allocates to local councils
They ain't allocating enough money is the short of it
They also raise revenues via Council Tax .
Nothing stopping Labour in Wales raising its own funding model if it feels UK one is not the right .
Wales , Scotland , NI do get more per head that England
Thanks for clarifying the first point and yes to the last point. But....family politics and parental inertia/illness meant that a 2015 will applied when mum died and, although expensive in terms of care costs for dad, better to keep it simple. Old people can't understand change so even something as simple as replacing lightbulbs with LEDs was a nightmare. Let alone rewriting a will, in mum's case. She would have refused to make any changes.
Thanks. I have found your advice very useful. However, I'm confused. You say the best plan is for spouses not to leave the house to each other. But isn't it a fact that 50% of the house is likely to be owned by a surviving spouse so it is logical for the remaining 50% to be left to the spouse.
Could there ever be a time when the surviving spouse is forced to sell the property in order to pay for the spouse's care costs or is your suggestion merely a way of ensuring the full value of the house is inherited by your children or whoever?
Well there is in as much as LAs don't have a bottomless pit of money due to years of austerity.
The main push into private care has been in the last decade especially in domiciliary care and this was seen as a way of driving down the cost of the hourly rate of care to help balance the books
The main problem with private provision is that for every £1 they get given they try to spend only a proportion of it and keep some back for profit - that profit has become less and less hence why packages of care are being returned - this and the staffing crisis as people walk away post pandemic
There are really good private providers out there as there are bad voluntary or statutory providers
Its not as simple as one or other but there are over 1000 providers in social care in Wales alone which makes the market place a little bit complex to say the least
RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?
The expensive private providers don't tend to be on the local authority approved list , the ones that are cheaper are though .......so the council awards the contracts to those which come in with the lowest bids
And these companies pay very poor wages
That's because Wales, Scotland and NI have greater social needs per head of population than England
So you think Wales can fund social care through council tax ?
Posting Permissions