advertisement


Who should pay for social care ?

hifinutt said:
filled in a social work referral today , it said if you have monetary assets of 23250 in the bank etc then you have to pay the full cost of care ! problem comes when they need care and refuse to pay !! what do you do ? :eek:
Click to expand...
A charge is put on assets by the local authority if the have assets over the threshold.
There is a myth about auntie Nelly having to sell her house for her care.
She won’t.
A charge is put on it by the local authority and on her death the executors have to pay the bill from her assets.
If that means sale of a house then so be it.
This can happen quite often if someone has to go in care, loses capacity and has not set up power of attorney.
The house cannot be sold by them because they don’t have mental capacity to do so.
See deferral of costs here

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/informatio...me/do-i-have-to-sell-my-home-to-pay-for-care/
 
As part of the NHS hospitals had geriatric wards which no longer exist. Politicians!

I am open to correction but I do not believe that Scotland imposes a house sale to pay for elderly care.
 
Eyebroughty said:
As far as I recall the time period the Social Work will look back at using your assets to pay for long term care is not just the date when you transferred your assets to your children or someone else but it also starts from the first time you received any type of assistance from Social Care.

An example being you might decide to buy some Homecare a few years before the 7 year date that you transferred your assets, this in some cases would make the time period the Social Work would start their use of your assets 7 years plus the years/months you used the Social Work services before that.

I know in my mothers case they looked back 12 years not 7 years, this was because she had hired a local service to have one hour of private home cleaning a week about 9 years before she needed to go into care.

One thing is for sure, they will look into every area of your finances, I know, I knew the people involved with the asset searches.

However things might have or might change, for the better I hope, but I won't hold my breath on that.
Click to expand...
The 7 year rule is for IHT, not care costs.
 
When my late father in-law was in hospital and discharged a doctor without knowing if he had property or other assets said put him in a care home. Absolutely no consultation either, so I had to pay for a life long contributor to the NHS for his care out of my pocket.
 
palacefan said:
When my late father in-law was in hospital and discharged a doctor without knowing if he had property or other assets said put him in a care home. Absolutely no consultation either, so I had to pay for a life long contributor to the NHS for his care out of my pocket.
Click to expand...

you didn’t have to.


When my mother in law went into a care home their contract had a nasty little clause that I would underwrite any shortfall if her money ran out.
I took advice, was told it was bang out of order, went ballistic with them and had it removed.
They knew I had them by the balls because there wasn’t a peep out of them as they removed said clause.
 
Are we not falling into a government trap by even answering the question of ‘who pays’?

First of all why is this only ever a question posed by government when it’s about providing a public service? It isn’t asked when it comes to declaring war. Why is killing people cheap, but helping people expensive?

If tax does not have to be raised to decimate lives, why does it have to be raised to improve lives?

If there are magic money trees for wars, why not for public services?
 
Indeed. Start by scrapping the totally obsolete nuclear deterrent (or at least its renewal). Obviously Labour would fight that due to pork barrels in Barrow etc.
 
Tony L said:
Indeed. Start by scrapping the totally obsolete nuclear deterrent (or at least its renewal). Obviously Labour would fight that due to pork barrels in Barrow etc.
Click to expand...
It’s not just Labour though is it. The Lib Dem’s policy was to keep the nuclear deterrent. Has it changed recently?

And after Corbyn said he would not press the button, Swinson said that she would without a moments hesitation.
 
It appears all those over pension age but still working will have to pay NI or a similar.
 
ks.234 said:
And after Corbyn said he would not press the button, Swinson said that she would without a moments hesitation.
Click to expand...

She’s just as toast as Corbyn. Both gone (Swinson lost her seat, Corbyn lost his party whip), both irrelevant to the current state of UK politics.

As far as the topic goes I do not see the logic in paying £bns to renew a 20th century cold-war deterrent. By saying that I don’t see the logic in paying Matt Hancock’s barman £millions for jack shit either, so what do I know?!
 
£86K cap, 'financed" by workers and their employers. A bonanza for NHS crony contractors, more talk about NHS Digital than improving care homes. And the public will probably think it's reasonable!
 
So basically hardly any change for ordinary people.
They pay £86000 for care plus board and lodge on top.
Let’s hope they have access to £86000 without selling their homes.
Meanwhile Lord Snooty’s country pile is ring fenced.
 
Tony L said:
She’s just as toast as Corbyn. Both gone (Swinson lost her seat, Corbyn lost his party whip), both irrelevant to the current state of UK politics.

As far as the topic goes I do not see the logic in paying £bns to renew a 20th century cold-war deterrent. By saying that I don’t see the logic in paying Matt Hancock’s barman £millions for jack shit either, so what do I know?!
Click to expand...
On that we can agree
 
Looks like yet more “f**** business” from Boris Johnson. As expected it appears low and middle earners are expected to pay for a cap on wealthy estates. Sounds remarkably regressive on first look. I assume Labour will need some time to set their ambiguity fence up and poll a few focus groups before unveiling any counterpoint.
 
If only I'd had a 7.9% pay rise this year (*), then the 1.25% hike in NI wouldn't be so bad.

(*) I don't believe it either but apparently it's the basis of the argument for sacking off the pension 'triple lock'.
 
Bob McC said:
So basically hardly any change for ordinary people.
They pay £86000 for care plus board and lodge on top.
Let’s hope they have access to £86000 without selling their homes.
Meanwhile Lord Snooty’s country pile is ring fenced.
Click to expand...
And his gelt offshored in Dublin.
 
Bob McC said:
So basically hardly any change for ordinary people.
They pay £86000 for care plus board and lodge on top.
Let’s hope they have access to £86000 without selling their homes.
Meanwhile Lord Snooty’s country pile is ring fenced.
Click to expand...

The average savings is little more than £20 k
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top