Home ownership vastly exaggerated.

[harvey19]

Politicians are rarely capable of planning more than 5 years ahead. Cross party planning over 30 years, I don't think it's remotely possible, looking for a conspiracy theory where none is needed I'm afraid.

 

I think you are right.

 

What do you think to the second part of my post ?

[harvey19]

Sorry, I'd thought that you had a bit of knowledge on the scale of the problem considering you had raised it a few times.

 

I apologise for being a bit too blunt.

[Cyclone]

I think you are right.

 

What do you think to the second part of my post ?

 

I disagree with the guy you were quoting, but I can see why someone might think that if they were going to end up with just enough when they retired to qualify to have it taken away from them.

If you aspire to actually do well instead, and have lots when you retire, then having to contribute to your potential old age care, and having to make legal arrangements like trusts and so on to avoid loosing your home aren't such a hardship to bear.

[harvey19]

I disagree with the guy you were quoting, but I can see why someone might think that if they were going to end up with just enough when they retired to qualify to have it taken away from them.

If you aspire to actually do well instead, and have lots when you retire, then having to contribute to your potential old age care, and having to make legal arrangements like trusts and so on to avoid loosing your home aren't such a hardship to bear.

 

Are there actually any trusts that maintain the proceeds of the home for ones children if one has to go into care. ?

I understood that instead of being joint owners the ownership was changed to owners in partnership(I may have got the phrase wrong) that could minimise the amount you were liable to contribute.

[harvey19]

I understand there is a system now where one can sell their home and move into a buy/rent housing association house.

What is the position when the tenant dies ?

I presume the ownership reverts to the housing association and if the buy part had been lump sum purchased does the association have the house valued at current market value and pay 50% of this sum to the person named in the will ?

[Cyclone]

Are there actually any trusts that maintain the proceeds of the home for ones children if one has to go into care. ?

I understood that instead of being joint owners the ownership was changed to owners in partnership(I may have got the phrase wrong) that could minimise the amount you were liable to contribute.

 

There are definitely ways of doing it, I'm up to date on the details as I'm far too young to care, my parents were looking at it with my grandparents a while back though.

[harvey19]

So how many people end up paying care costs?

 

40,000 per year in the UK and rising I have just read.

[chem1st]

I understand there is a system now where one can sell their home and move into a buy/rent housing association house.

What is the position when the tenant dies ?

I presume the ownership reverts to the housing association and if the buy part had been lump sum purchased does the association have the house valued at current market value and pay 50% of this sum to the person named in the will ?

 

You put home for sale and rent social housing. You occupy two homes at the expense of the youth. Housing benefit can cover cost of renting (i.e. youth's taxes), property is passed onto children (or whomever designated in will) upon death if not sold within 1-2year of moving. If sold, property becomes cash and means tested, full rent payable till savings reduced to below £6/16k. (£1/250/week reduction for £16k till winded down to £6k)

[I1L2T3]

Other factors need to be taken into consideration.

Many who bought their counci houssl couldn't afford the deposit for a mortgage on a private property after paying rent. Mortgages were not as easy to get in the 1970s when only a mans wage was taken into consideration and only 2.5 times his salary was offered.

By selling council houses it relieved the council of the expense of maintainining and modernising these sold houses.

It relieved them of the burden of subsidising and collecting rents.

Many of the houses had already been paid for in relation to building costs.

But the main very astute difference is that a tenant who bought their home is liable to have to use the value of their home(anything over £23,000) to pay for care costs.

The revenue collected from the sales should have been invested in new council housing.

 

Understand fully where you are coming from. The revenue absolutely should have been re-invested in new housing.

 

It's easy to forget the 1980s/90s housing shortages that led to whole families rotting in high cost B&B accomodation because of shortages of public housing. The B&Bs even became attractive investments because of the amount of revenue that could be got from the government for housing those poor families. The fact is social housing fulfilled a need and its whole purpose was usurped to get votes. Sad days and on the way back it seems - at least Thatcher had a vast stock of public housing to play with, not so for Cameron.

 

I'll never forget staying in a B&B in Gateshead in the late 80s when I went up for the Great North Run. The B&B was a tragic and desperate place full of homeless families - sounds dramatic but it was that bad.

[harvey19]

You put home for sale and rent social housing. You occupy two homes at the expense of the youth. Housing benefit can cover cost of renting (i.e. youth's taxes), property is passed onto children (or whomever designated in will) upon death if not sold within 1-2year of moving. If sold, property becomes cash and means tested, full rent payable till savings reduced to below £6/16k. (£1/250/week reduction for £16k till winded down to £6k)

 

Sorry if I did not explain myself clearly.

I was referring to a person selling their home and moving into an housing association house where they paid a lump sum for half the value of the property and paid rent for the half they hadn't bought.