Avoiding Care Charges

[lisdar]

If I owned my own house and have money in the bank what is the best way to avoid charges if I were to go into a home

[Islay]

exactly bednobs!!

[bednobs]

besides, wouldnt you want to have a choice of care home, a private room and so on? or would you rather just go to the cheapest one social services can find?

[sunny-dave]

I agree with Islay and Bednobs.

There is no other thing in my life that I can just say "OK - I may have some valuable assets, but I don't want to pay for this - therefore the taxpayers can pick up the bill".

It's completely illogical that you should expect your personal care (as opposed to medical requirements) to be funded by 'society' so that you can pass all your wealth on to your chosen heirs.

The real scandal is the artificially inflated cost of residential care - £1250 a week (or more) for each person in a home with many residents is beyond a joke - people are getting seriously rich on the back of these ludicrous charges ... but of course that is Private Enterprise and so utterly sacrosant in the Conservative World.

[RATTER15]

Perhaps if people stopped avoiding care charges, their carers may be able to get off minimum wage!!

[pixie374]

Me too- you should pay what you can afford.

[bednobs]

sunny dave - a care homes charges may be high, but that'll only be to the self-funders. Social services and NHS pay far less

[Islay]

Ratter that won't make a difference - the companies need to pay decent wages to begin with or the minimum wage needs increasing.

[sunny-dave]

I know that bednobs - and that's wrong too - a bed is a bed is a bed and pricing should be open and transparent.

[pixie374]

Self-funders don't make up for it anyway. So many around here are going bankrupt, mostly due to staff turnover- so agency and training costs.

[zebo]

I think what really ticks people off, me included, is the iniquity of the person who has managed their money wisely is being expected to subsidise the person with the same income etc. who has wilfully not managed their finances. That has always been the case under whatever government, the feckless are the winners, my children have a greater right to my money than they do.

[pixie374]

Not a greater right than you do though, zebo.

[-SharonA-]

Re Eddie @ 14:49, what he says is true, the council go back many years to deprive you of your money.
I am planning to sign over most to my two sons.

[sunny-dave]

That's an unfotunate fact about much of our lives, zebo - not just care in our old age.

The only way to avoid it is to reduce the level of 'feck' in one's own life - but would you really want to live the compromised life of a full-time dole bludger?

[pixie374]

I've known them go back 19 years- if they think you have done it to avoid fees, they will take it.

[sunny-dave]

The crucial bit is whether you still have "use of the assets".

It's no good giving your house to the kids if you still live there, maintain it, pay the utility bills, pay the council tax and don't pay a 'market rent' to the new owners each and every month - believe me they'll also check to see if any rent is quietly syphoned back to you.

[bednobs]

hey, look on the bright side everyone - you may not actually ever need care! Or you may be so bad that you qualify for continuing healthcare funding.

[Islay]

There is also the tax implications - do you think its only the council you will have on your back - what about HMRC?

[sunny-dave]

The only certain things in this life are death and taxes, Islay ... oh and wine, definitely wine ...

[naomi24]

I've just posted this in the thread in News, but I'll repeat it here.

//People are selling their property to fund care homes now. The difference in the new proposal is that property will not be required to be sold until after the subject has died, and the cost of care provided, either in a care home, or in their own homes will be deducted from the estate. In effect that means the families of those who go into homes will win because instead of inheriting nothing, as many of them do now, they’ll be left with £100,000, and families of those for whom state care is provided at home will lose because home care will no longer be free. Of course, if a family cares for the elderly relative at home, there will be no charge whatsoever, and they’ll inherit everything, as happens now. I wonder if that will make a difference to the choices families make? //

[zylaphone]

I agree Zebo - why should people be penalised for working and saving. I feel it is family money?