The point is that they won't inherit it at all of you end up in dementia care because your assets will be dissolved to pay for that care until there is nothing left to inherit...

But yes, I did mean to add in that first post that it's only the way to go for people with close relationships with their offspring, and who know their offspring to be trustworthy. I thought I had said that but, reading it back, can see that I forgot :joker:.

Of course you shouldn't sign over your home to Nasty Nick Cotton, but some people are lucky enough to have the sort of relationship with their parents where it wouldn't even be a concern. Apparently. I'm guessing really since I've never been particularly close to either of my parents and one is already dead :umm2:.

I just read about this. It's awful.
My Mum's house is worth 130 thousand & it's her only asset, she has no savings & it has taken her 27 years to pay it off. My sister is in her late thirties & lives with her but cannot work due to long term illness. What would happen to her?. I'm really worried. Would she be made homeless ?.

Not sure what would happen in that instance, if it comes into force it might be worth putting a life time tenancy in place for your aunt.. so they can't sell it in her lifetime? under the proposed rules, your Mum would be entitled to keep 100,000 but I don't know how they would get the 30,000 owed apart from selling later on..

I know that when it's a partner, they can't touch a house if there is someone still living there. I have to admit though that I don't know to what extent this applies to adult children, if they're not named in the ownership papers. It's probably worth looking into to sort it out before it becomes an issue.

Money is a funny old thing though and even the closest of families can be split by it, my brother owes his nephews (my sons) money from a family estate, but he has decided to not to give it to them as the family member gifted to him originally but then changed her mind to include other family members (my kids weren't born when she gifted the property to him), she changed her will, he is the executor but won't honour it, the amount of money would be swallowed up by legal fees if we were to challenge it, and the best part about is he doesn't feel he has done anything wrong even though one of my sons is his Godchild. :joker: pratt!

It's really worrying. What about people who live with their parents to care for them ?. Would they be kicked out when they died ?. It's such a disgusting proposal. It means the people with houses not worth much would lose everything they worked so hard for while rich people would not lose much. Typical Tories.

From what I can gather this wouldn't be an issue unless you wanted state help as well, that said no on can be a full time carer without some help

So, it now appears there could be a cap as well as a floor.
I don't know how much it well help very much if you live in London or other very expensive areas.:shrug:
A guarantee to be left with at least £100 grand is better than the current situation of £23grand, but it would be reassuring to know that there is a cap on what you would have to pay, give people hope of actually keeping more of their hard earned cash.
Depends on what the cap is set at of course, and if it goes beyond being looked at in the green paper.

If the Tories ask for a dementia tax, just don't pay it, tell them you forgot.

no point in offering up figures as the goalposts will be moved a few times yet.

but if old doris can spend the winter piling logs onto her coal fire without a care in the world then she can help pay her way.

£90 grand in savings and ownage of own house...i would have them paying till they keeled over and died.

Is this only for those who need care for dementia ? What about those who get other conditions & need care ?.
It's so unfair to punish people at the bottom end of the property ladder & only have their house as an asset. Some mega rich people have multiple homes & will pay very little.
I would never vote for the Tories, they disgust me.

No "its been dubbed the dementia tax" by the opposition it is in effect and old age/illness tax

Come on it will start somewhere? whats your wealthy pensioner, 12,000 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 you must have a figure in mind?

i added it..glasses are free on the nhs btw.:smug:

You're a funny guy, Alf! :laugh:

This will force a lot of people to shoulder the burden of looking after a loved one alone & not ask for help through fear of what might happen. In an age where people can't afford to rent or buy their own home many more people remain with their parents.

Are they?
To whom exactly?
We always have to pay for ours, as do pensioners.

do you get them free? I dont

so in your opinion owning your own home and 90K in the bank is a wealthy pensioner

what income will you get from living in your own home, nada unless you rent out a room, but there will be repair bills over the years, boiler breakdown, boiler service, roof repairs insurance etc

90k in the bank on a generous 1 per cent would give your an income of 900.00 a year on top of your state pension, you would get no where near 1 per cent these days, most of it would be on 0.25 per cent.

90k would soon dwindle away if you were drawing on it to subsidise your state pension, if you drew out 6,000 a year, giving you an extra 500 a month or 125 a week it would be gone in 15 years....happy old age!!!

Thats when they should get extra money. Once its all spent.

So you're all for privatizing the NHS then? I mean, this is what this is; this is the start of it.

Since when was dementia not an illness?

Indeed.
Not forgetting you have no right to dole or claiming a care allowance either if you come out of work and have a little in the bank, so you have to use any savings you have. Sort of diminishes any feeling of wanting to save all your life for a decent old age.

so you want Doris at 80 odd to start claiming for stuff she never got before :facepalm: you seriously are a proper Tory :laugh: what will actually happen is no one will tell Doris that she is entitled to anything and she will try and live on a pittance ..while the people who didn't buy their own home, didn't save will have applied for everything as soon as they hit 67 and will have half a decent life

thats kind of my point, May bangs on about helping "hard working people" when the reality is the harder you work, the more you save the bigger the mug you are.... thats how it seems to be now anyway.

so the hastily rethought cap won't be known until after the election :joker: oh dear dear

Dementia Tax Turn http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7749001.html

If you make being consistent your USP and then backtrack as consistently as the current crop of Tories have you set yourself up to fail

I am surprised by much of what is going on with the Tories. Why have they brought up fox hunting. It's highly unpopular amongst most voters, as is their backtracking on the domestic ivory trade. The UK is famously a nation of animal lovers. People like foxes and elephants. Why risk pissing their voters off over something like this?

It also shows they've just thrown this manifesto together out of odd ideas written on the back of a napkin

Im not a tory but i do believe they are the only party capable of running GB.

This is what I cant get my head around,it's like she really doesn't want to win and pass the weight of government onto someone else,I think it's political suicide myself,I do ask WHY?

Its either that or its arrogance. I think its the former.

The Conservative government, including May, believe that leaving the EU is political suicide but now Mays left facing what she probably considers an impossible mandate and she doesn't want to take responsibility for collapsing the whole country.

People have been rendered speechless by her manifesto and she keeps gleefully reminding us that she only needs to lose six more seats!

I think it's more arrogance that she knows she guaranteed the win and is pushing through as much as she can.
If this was a close thing she wouldn't dream of adding fox hunting to the agenda.It's certainly not a vote winner.

If its arrogance, the Tories already believe they exist in a one party state.

Forcing the elderly sick to pay equity to the government (instead of passing on to next of kin)
Increases to interest rates on student loans,
Refusal to increase the minimum wage,
Reductions to corporation tax,
Cuts to the NHS (won’t rule out privatisation)
An entirely volunteered repeat-vote on fox-hunting, openly supporting the hugely unpopular blood-sport
Re-legalising the immoral ivory trade
Restrictions to what British citizens can see on the internet, introducing North Korea-style censorship and state propaganda
http://evolvepolitics.com/theresa-ma...mething-weird/

Yeah I recognise this.It's even triggered me to vote Corbyn ffs:laugh:

Well I've seen you as a bit of a fence sitter for a while now and nothing wrong with that. You get a better view from up there don't you?!?

I'm just glad you've seen the light :hee:

I wonder what these targetted ads look like on FB.... It's unbelievable they can get away with not disclosing the content of them, they could be saying all kinds of half truths and untruths... :/

If you have received one anybody screen shot it for me :)

Not fence sitting.I have strong opinions on most issues.Strong anti Corbyn opinions and anti Tory.I struggle for a political home.I have right and left wing views on different issues and there isn't a party who represents me.
I have to walk into that polling station with a peg on my nose when i cast that Labour vote.

I feel the same, no political party represents me fully or even partially :laugh:

Why can't we just have a sensible Labour party?

https://media.giphy.com/media/TwICmfGwRl9pC/giphy.gif

Hush your mouth!

Oh because they've done such a great job at running it these past 8 years haven't they?:joker:

In my lifetime Labour ran the country much better, no ISIS, no NHS being chopped down to such an extent that the NHS is being sold off left, right, and centre, no talk about heavily regulating the Internet, and also people themselves financially could afford to buy things and were generally alot happier than they are under the Tories, and also the Media weren't so biased towards Labour like they are with the Tories, you can't actually say a bad word about the Tories in the Media it feels like.

The Cameron/May vision of the Tories has been terrible and have proven to me that being pro rich over anything else isn't good for the country as it's just breeding more and more negativity.

Labour did a pretty good job of running us into the ground which is why no one voted for them. People have short memories.