Winter fuel allowance?

For information and discussion about benefits
Yes Jenny- I totaly agree where you are coming from for funding within a care home and yes obviously 100,000 is significantly better than zilch. My personal protest is regarding funding care at home where house is currently disregarded in income calculation but will cease to be disregarded.
Susie, I am not trying to scare the ---- out of anyone, I am just trying to address the frequently misinterpreted "Increase" in the threshold. I am eagerly awaiting tonight's debate to hear some flesh put on the bones.
Lindi- no thankfully it is not quite that scary- you pay as you go so to speak so if care costs came to £5,000 you would keep 195,000 and would not be forced to sell the property at all during the life time of the caree, probably never at all for such a small sum.
Ah, that I hadn't twigged Henrietta! Yes, it would be retrograde to introduce a house valuation into the care-at-home costings.
I would appear that the 'dementia tax' is little more than a souped up equity release scheme involving insurance companies.

I've copied the following from Richard Murphy's blog Tax Research, emailed to me by a very good friend. Not one to take anyone's word for anything, he has checked this out via contacts he has in the City. The warnings given below appear to be true.

Make of it what you will.

“The Conservatives will attempt to soften the blow by promising that pensioners will not have to sell their homes to pay for their care costs while they or a surviving partner are alive. Instead, ‘products will be available’ allowing the elderly to pay by extracting equity from their homes, which will be recovered at a later date when they die or sell their residence.

I have just seen this post online: People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.

“I work in the City. The insurance industry was approached by the Government several months ago with the aim of creating a new market for a new product.
This arrangement is a culmination of those discussions. You wont have to sell your house PROVIDED that you purchase an insurance product to cover your social care. The “premiums” would be recovered from the equity after the house has been sold and the Insurance company will have a lien on the house and can force a sale if it wants to. So your offspring cant keep it on the market for long in order to get the best price.

The real kicker in this is that in order to encourage the industry to market these products the government guaranteed that there would be no cap on the premiums. This was in some ways “atonement” for Osborne’s destruction of the highly lucrative annuities market. This means that the premiums could be up to (and including) the entire remaining equity in the property after the government has taken its cut. Companies will be falling over themselves to get their snouts in this trough.

In short your offspring and relatives could get absolutely nothing from your estate. If you buy one of these products you need to read the small print very very carefully indeed because there will be some real dogs on the market.
I suspect that this is another financial scandal waiting to happen, but by the time it does May will be long gone.’”

A case perhaps of 'Beware Greeks bearing gifts' :-???
I am glad to say that the question has been asked on the BBC politics show today, so now it is out in the open that pensioners need to know the answer.

When politicians make up policy "on the hoof" they should realise the implications for the public don't you think?

Or as we used to say in the good old days, Engage brain before opening mouth
Will there be two strands to the means test?

A capital savings threshold. And or a weekly income maximum?
Colin_1705 wrote:Will there be two strands to the means test?

A capital savings threshold. And or a weekly income maximum?
that's anyone's guess right now Colin ! we just don't have enough information at the moment to know how it is proposed to work (or even if it will be implemented eventually).