pensioners average income vs working age family income

pblakeney

So. In summary, you work all your days just to get a few years R&R, then someone takes all your estate. I could see why people would choose the life on benefits.

Stevo_666

giropaul wrote:

It is also seen as " self deprivation " and councils and the DWP are getting much more aggressive in identifying it and seeking redress.

True, but how far back do you go?

Say you decide to give your kids a helping hand onto the housing ladder and give them money to a deposit when you are say 50 years old. 35 years later you go into care - should this be counted as self deprivation? In reality the trick is to do the planning before it is forced on you - not always easy, granted.

And Blakey has a point - why slave away if you end up giving it away when you can be a lazy tw@t and get it all paid for by the state? Once people twig that they will likely end up handing over what they thought was their kids inheritance to the council, the wiser ones will give things away earlier; others may choose to p1ss it up the wall instead. You only live once.

Mikey23

@surreycommuter... funny you should mention that. Not technically but i do get free eye tests because my dad had glaucoma...

Mikey23

@stevo... there are ways of doing it and within the law. Somebody mentioned it in the thread. My dad in law gave his 4 offspring some quite extensive cash gifts every christmas in order to reduce his assets below the death duty limit. And i dont think he paid anything for his residential care in his last days. Not that i would begrudge him that of course. He was an accountant and knew his onions and was determined the state wasnt going to get whqt he worked hard for. And he was a pilot in WW2. Its as well to do your homework otherwise you may end up paying more than you need

Stevo_666

Mikey23 wrote:

@stevo... there are ways of doing it and within the law. Somebody mentioned it in the thread. My dad in law gave his 4 offspring some quite extensive cash gifts every christmas in order to reduce his assets below the death duty limit. And i dont think he paid anything for his residential care in his last days. Not that i would begrudge him that of course. He was an accountant and knew his onions and was determined the state wasnt going to get whqt he worked hard for. And he was a pilot in WW2. Its as well to do your homework otherwise you may end up paying more than you need

Mikey, there are two different issues here - one is inheritance tax and the other is care fees.

The inheritance tax rules are clear - exempt threshold is £325k per person and if you survive 7 years after making a gift and you're home and hosed. The care fee rules are not clear at all on timing as far as I can see, although the state does contribute part of the fees when your savings fall below roughly £23k and all below £14k.

I've done my homework but for me inheritance tax will never be an issue (parents live up North and not wealthy). Its the care fee point that we planned for - as mentioned above, they changed the house ownership to tenants in common, make their wills direct to me not each other and you then have a chance of getting half of what they intended you to have.

rjsterry

PBlakeney wrote:

So. In summary, you work all your days just to get a few years R&R, then someone takes all your estate. I could see why people would choose the life on benefits.

The problem is it's not unusual to now have 20 years of 'R&R'.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

So. In summary, you work all your days just to get a few years R&R, then someone takes all your estate. I could see why people would choose the life on benefits.

The problem is it's not unusual to now have 20 years of 'R&R'.

Shorten that 20 years and the young have even fewer opportunities.
Reduce the pension and people can't afford to retire and thus reduce the opportunities for the young.
Hobson's choice.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

So. In summary, you work all your days just to get a few years R&R, then someone takes all your estate. I could see why people would choose the life on benefits.

The problem is it's not unusual to now have 20 years of 'R&R'.

Shorten that 20 years and the young have even fewer opportunities.
Reduce the pension and people can't afford to retire and thus reduce the opportunities for the young.
Hobson's choice.

Assuming the oldies are more employable than the snowflakes

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

So. In summary, you work all your days just to get a few years R&R, then someone takes all your estate. I could see why people would choose the life on benefits.

The problem is it's not unusual to now have 20 years of 'R&R'.

Shorten that 20 years and the young have even fewer opportunities.
Reduce the pension and people can't afford to retire and thus reduce the opportunities for the young.
Hobson's choice.

Assuming the oldies are more employable than the snowflakes

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

And maybe because they generally aren't self entitled whingers?

ballysmate

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

And maybe because they generally aren't self entitled whingers?

Well that as well.

pblakeney

Ballysmate wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

And maybe because they generally aren't self entitled whingers?

Well that as well.

As well as they can operate without a phone 4" from their nose.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

And maybe because they generally aren't self entitled whingers?

I reckon the whingers and sense of entitlement are pretty evenly distributed. I've heard just as much from the "I've paid in all my life..." brigade as from millennials complaining that they can't afford to buy a house in central London.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

And maybe because they generally aren't self entitled whingers?

I reckon the whingers and sense of entitlement are pretty evenly distributed. I've heard just as much from the "I've paid in all my life..." brigade as from millennials complaining that they can't afford to buy a house in central London.

Stop being so damn even handed RJS

Pross

Ballysmate wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

The oldies have a wealth of experience compared to a spotty youth clutching a qualification.
Besides, you can't sack someone because of age.

And maybe because they generally aren't self entitled whingers?

Well that as well.

I'm not sure about that, someone mooted the idea of putting the fees of my choir up to help build the cash reserves towards a tour and got shouted down with 'some of us are pensioners now and can't afford it, if the fees increase we'll have to leave'. The proposal was to go from £10 per month to £12 per month!

rjsterry

A lot more whinging to come if as proposed pensions switch from annual increases based on RPI to CPI.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -of-pounds

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

Mikey23 wrote:

@stevo... there are ways of doing it and within the law. Somebody mentioned it in the thread. My dad in law gave his 4 offspring some quite extensive cash gifts every christmas in order to reduce his assets below the death duty limit. And i dont think he paid anything for his residential care in his last days. Not that i would begrudge him that of course. He was an accountant and knew his onions and was determined the state wasnt going to get whqt he worked hard for. And he was a pilot in WW2. Its as well to do your homework otherwise you may end up paying more than you need

Mikey, there are two different issues here - one is inheritance tax and the other is care fees.

The inheritance tax rules are clear - exempt threshold is £325k per person and if you survive 7 years after making a gift and you're home and hosed. The care fee rules are not clear at all on timing as far as I can see, although the state does contribute part of the fees when your savings fall below roughly £23k and all below £14k.

I've done my homework but for me inheritance tax will never be an issue (parents live up North and not wealthy). Its the care fee point that we planned for - as mentioned above, they changed the house ownership to tenants in common, make their wills direct to me not each other and you then have a chance of getting half of what they intended you to have.

The 7 year rule applies to care home/other council fees as well, but I don't think there is any threshhold - it can be any amount given away to "avoid" fees. If people are living in the home, the fees are deferred until the person dies and then the fees are recoupped from the disposal of the house/estate. It is also possible to take out insurance against dying withn 7 years of making a large gift - one of my relatives did this when their spouse died and they handed some of the inheritance straight to their kids, as they thought the kids (with their own kids and mortgages) needed it more than they did. Most people would consider this good and above board, but the rules on self deprivation make it look suspect, hence taking out the insurance policy.

Stevo_666

mrfpb wrote:

The 7 year rule applies to care home/other council fees as well, but I don't think there is any threshhold - it can be any amount given away to "avoid" fees. If people are living in the home, the fees are deferred until the person dies and then the fees are recoupped from the disposal of the house/estate. It is also possible to take out insurance against dying withn 7 years of making a large gift - one of my relatives did this when their spouse died and they handed some of the inheritance straight to their kids, as they thought the kids (with their own kids and mortgages) needed it more than they did. Most people would consider this good and above board, but the rules on self deprivation make it look suspect, hence taking out the insurance policy.

Ta - was aware of most of that but not the 7 year rule on care fees. Certainly when my mother needed in home care the financial assessment asked for no more than a years worth of bank statements etc and just current stuff on anything else re assets, income and outgoings.

ballysmate

rjsterry wrote:

A lot more whinging to come if as proposed pensions switch from annual increases based on RPI to CPI.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -of-pounds

Well at least it will please the snowflakes and coincidentally bring them in line with the public sector.

rjsterry

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A lot more whinging to come if as proposed pensions switch from annual increases based on RPI to CPI.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -of-pounds

Well at least it will please the snowflakes and coincidentally bring them in line with the public sector.

Not sure how widely you are drawing the snowflake category. Do you just mean under-30s? Given auto enrollment has just kicked in, pensions are something almost everyone with a job will need to think about rather than being something for other people.

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

The 7 year rule applies to care home/other council fees as well, but I don't think there is any threshhold - it can be any amount given away to "avoid" fees. If people are living in the home, the fees are deferred until the person dies and then the fees are recoupped from the disposal of the house/estate. It is also possible to take out insurance against dying withn 7 years of making a large gift - one of my relatives did this when their spouse died and they handed some of the inheritance straight to their kids, as they thought the kids (with their own kids and mortgages) needed it more than they did. Most people would consider this good and above board, but the rules on self deprivation make it look suspect, hence taking out the insurance policy.

Ta - was aware of most of that but not the 7 year rule on care fees. Certainly when my mother needed in home care the financial assessment asked for no more than a years worth of bank statements etc and just current stuff on anything else re assets, income and outgoings.

there isnt a 7 year rule on avoiding care home fee's, it all to with whether you knowing gave away assets when it would have been reasonable for you to have expected to go into care, it could 6 months or 15 years...... its basically your motivation and thats down to your health, if you do this get a GP report to say your fit and healthy.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB ... ?dtrk=true

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

The 7 year rule applies to care home/other council fees as well, but I don't think there is any threshhold - it can be any amount given away to "avoid" fees. If people are living in the home, the fees are deferred until the person dies and then the fees are recoupped from the disposal of the house/estate. It is also possible to take out insurance against dying withn 7 years of making a large gift - one of my relatives did this when their spouse died and they handed some of the inheritance straight to their kids, as they thought the kids (with their own kids and mortgages) needed it more than they did. Most people would consider this good and above board, but the rules on self deprivation make it look suspect, hence taking out the insurance policy.

Ta - was aware of most of that but not the 7 year rule on care fees. Certainly when my mother needed in home care the financial assessment asked for no more than a years worth of bank statements etc and just current stuff on anything else re assets, income and outgoings.

there isnt a 7 year rule on avoiding care home fee's, it all to with whether you knowing gave away assets when it would have been reasonable for you to have expected to go into care, it could 6 months or 15 years...... its basically your motivation and thats down to your health, if you do this get a GP report to say your fit and healthy.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB ... ?dtrk=true

Mrfpb stands corrected ! Very useful link, thanks.

mamba80

always happy to assist you Stevo

your warm response almost but not quite began to thaw this snowflake lol!

to anyone else, money and death brings out the worst in people, whatever you do in your Will, make sure you really do your research.

kingstongraham

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A lot more whinging to come if as proposed pensions switch from annual increases based on RPI to CPI.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -of-pounds

Well at least it will please the snowflakes and coincidentally bring them in line with the public sector.

Who would be the snowflakes in this situation? Surely the ones who are upset when confronted with financial reality.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

A lot more whinging to come if as proposed pensions switch from annual increases based on RPI to CPI.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/ ... -of-pounds

Well at least it will please the snowflakes and coincidentally bring them in line with the public sector.

Who would be the snowflakes in this situation? Surely the ones who are upset when confronted with financial reality.

Never trust anybody who invents o ruses childish derogatory terms. It is a deliberate manipulative policy to shut down debate... I give you as exhibits "remoaners" "fake news"

and yes I realise most on this thread are using it in an ironic way

rick_chasey

So are we anywhere near a solution to the problem; that caring for aged is going to become remarkably more expensive for the UK as the biggest generation cohort moves into old age, and they will be supported by a generations, that, relatively speaking, earns less than they do (and did) and (much more importantly) are smaller in numbers?

pblakeney

Kick the problem down the road.
Not the best solution but my prediction on the reality.

mrfpb

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mrfpb wrote:

The 7 year rule applies to care home/other council fees as well, but I don't think there is any threshhold - it can be any amount given away to "avoid" fees. If people are living in the home, the fees are deferred until the person dies and then the fees are recoupped from the disposal of the house/estate. It is also possible to take out insurance against dying withn 7 years of making a large gift - one of my relatives did this when their spouse died and they handed some of the inheritance straight to their kids, as they thought the kids (with their own kids and mortgages) needed it more than they did. Most people would consider this good and above board, but the rules on self deprivation make it look suspect, hence taking out the insurance policy.

Ta - was aware of most of that but not the 7 year rule on care fees. Certainly when my mother needed in home care the financial assessment asked for no more than a years worth of bank statements etc and just current stuff on anything else re assets, income and outgoings.

there isnt a 7 year rule on avoiding care home fee's, it all to with whether you knowing gave away assets when it would have been reasonable for you to have expected to go into care, it could 6 months or 15 years...... its basically your motivation and thats down to your health, if you do this get a GP report to say your fit and healthy.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB ... ?dtrk=true

Mrfpb stands corrected ! Very useful link, thanks.

I do stand corrected. It is a long time since I worked for a local authority, and they were applying the 7 year rule at the time. I see the guidance puts the burden on the local authority to prove deliberate depravation has taken place. That is reassuring. Does anyone know if this has been tested in court?

kingstongraham

Not sure I want my care in old age to be dependent on what my council can afford.

Long term, would improved maternity/paternity leave and education be a wise investment?

Stevo_666

mrfpb wrote:

I do stand corrected. It is a long time since I worked for a local authority, and they were applying the 7 year rule at the time. I see the guidance puts the burden on the local authority to prove deliberate depravation has taken place. That is reassuring. Does anyone know if this has been tested in court?

I don't know but as proving intent is often quite tricky it is going to be difficult for them to do this in anything but the most obvious of cases.