How much do you need to retire in Australia in 2021?

[Paul1Perth]

On 26/09/2021 at 15:39, Wanderer Returns said:

I'm sure they have. I paid my first mortgage off at 52. I now have another one, although I won't have paid it off until I'm 85 so I just consider that I'm renting my property from the bank, and there will hopefully be a tax-free windfall when I come to sell it. I accept that I won't ever own this house outright, and that doesn't bother me at all. (Well, maybe just a little).

My earlier comment was referring to those who are now just buying their first homes in their mid-thirties. They are unlikely to be able to retire at 60, unless they are high earners or make some very lucrative investments along the way.

Who knows what's round the corner? Might have a major correction in house prices over the next few years. All this talk about young people not being able to afford houses can't be right. Loads of new houses still being built, loads of older established ones for sale, all seem to be selling fast, so someones buying them.

I think the phrase unsustainable is a bit over used but I can't honestly see the crazy increases we've seen continuing. If interest rates rise, which they surely will in the next few years, a lot of people are going to be in strife, again. You would have thought the GFC would have taught the banks and everyone a thing or two but we're back on the same gravy train.

We emigrated when I was 35 and my wife 30, we made a bit on a house we sold in the UK but that paid for us to come. We were starting from scratch by the time we got here. No jobs, no certainty, renting in Como.

We both got jobs, after renting for a year we moved into the house we are still in now and were worried about what we'd done, whether we could afford it. We paid $135,000, doesn't sound much now but as a percentage of what we were earning the repayments were a concern. Interest rates were high then too.

A few years later, interest rates dropped a bit, I got a better job with more money, situations usually improve if you work hard and plan (and don't divorce)

Now we've paid the mortgage off, have enough to have a decent lifestyle and will eventually get some money from the UK, when my Sis gets round to selling my parents place. Ditto when my FIL passes away. 

My kids will get our place when we pass on so who knows what's in the future.

[Wanderer Returns]

7 hours ago, Parley said:

That figure was a maximum. I think I read somewhere the average stay in an Aged Care home is only around 18 months. That was Australia but people are going in to these facilities usually nearly at the end of life.

With my Mum her unit was sold to fund the bond for Aged Care I think it was about $250K at that time. Depending on the length of stay the estate gets money back when the resident passes away. There are ongoing costs which the Aged Pension covers.

I think my Mum was in about that 18 months or so and we received most of the bond back.

 

7 hours ago, Parley said:

Should add too it is all means tested. People with assets are expected to contribute to the cost of their care.

Someone who has no assets will still get aged care, but will be unlikely to get the choice of where they want to go. The government will pay for those with no assets.

Thanks for the insight. I've no idea how the system works over here, and considering I'm a decade older than my wife I should probably know more because out of the two of us I'll be the most likely recipient of the service  

In the UK the average cost of aged care is now an eye-watering £700/week (£900/week for nursing care), so it'll not take you around 2 years to burn through £86,000.

 

[MARYROSE02]

On 26/09/2021 at 15:42, Paul1Perth said:

It used to be bulk billed but there's a charge now. You get most of it back through medicare.

Just the fact that it is open 7 days is reassuring. If I remember rightly,  most GPs in England worked Mon to Friday?

[Wanderer Returns]

4 minutes ago, MARYROSE02 said:

Just the fact that it is open 7 days is reassuring. If I remember rightly,  most GPs in England worked Mon to Friday?

That's still correct, and where we living in Chesterfield we were waiting a week to 10 days to see the quack - and you can't easily register with another doctor - you need to be in the catchment area for that surgery. After my wife had her operation 3 weeks ago she needed a dressing changing, and was able to walk into a doctors on Sunday without an appointment - even here on the Sunshine Coast.

[MARYROSE02]

On 26/09/2021 at 16:24, Tulip1 said:

You don’t need to push yourself to do anything.  You’re retired, so do what suits you best.  If you enjoy staying up late then what’s wrong with that.  If that means you get up later than your neighbour so what.  It’s because you’ve enjoyed watching the late football.  Retirement must be about doing what makes yoh happy. 

I'm worn out today after staying up to watch Arsenal v Spurs (not an uplifting experience) and going to bed around 4am and rising around 430pm. I didn't sleep for 12 hours. It was more intermittent. If it had started at 0230 I might have tried to go to sleep earlier and watch it on record.  I know plenty of blokes who carry on to work after staying up all night. 

Actually my sleep pattern has not been that good but I put that down to the effects of the lockdown in Sydney - the 14th week, this week. Allegedly,  the 15th week will be the last.

I think I want to spend my retirement or at least the winter part of it in QLD. Even today, 27th September,  there was a chill wind in the park.

[MARYROSE02]

6 minutes ago, Wanderer Returns said:

That's still correct, and where we living in Chesterfield we were waiting a week to 10 days to see the quack - and you can't easily register with another doctor - you need to be in the catchment area for that surgery. After my wife had her operation 3 weeks ago she needed a dressing changing, and was able to walk into a doctors on Sunday without an appointment - even here on the Sunshine Coast.

It wasn't quite that bad at my surgery in Totton, Hants,  where we rang after 0830 on weekdays and got an appointment for that day, but no weekends or evenings. 

Pre-covid there was a 24x7 GP in Surfers. (I'm not sure if it's still going 24x7 but the number of tourists is right down of course. I went there on Xmas Day in 2019.

The doctor I liked seeing in Surfers works 7 days a week although I usually went during the week. The single doctor practice I see in Sydney works mornings M to F and he's retiring at Xmas. I'll make the Bondi Jn 7 day clinic my doctors then.  Going there on Sat or Sun is no different to during the week unless you are seeing a specific doctor. There's a lady I like who is only there Tue and Thu but I'm happy to take "pot luck".

That's nice to know that there's a 7 day clinic on the Sunshine Coast in case I check it out next year when Anna opens the border.  I've been there but a long time ago. 

[ramot]

2 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

It wasn't quite that bad at my surgery in Totton, Hants,  where we rang after 0830 on weekdays and got an appointment for that day, but no weekends or evenings. 

Pre-covid there was a 24x7 GP in Surfers. (I'm not sure if it's still going 24x7 but the number of tourists is right down of course. I went there on Xmas Day in 2019.

The doctor I liked seeing in Surfers works 7 days a week although I usually went during the week. The single doctor practice I see in Sydney works mornings M to F and he's retiring at Xmas. I'll make the Bondi Jn 7 day clinic my doctors then.  Going there on Sat or Sun is no different to during the week unless you are seeing a specific doctor. There's a lady I like who is only there Tue and Thu but I'm happy to take "pot luck".

That's nice to know that there's a 7 day clinic on the Sunshine Coast in case I check it out next year when Anna opens the border.  I've been there but a long time ago. 

There are 3,  7 days a week Drs  nearby me M R. Maroochydore, Kawana and Sippy Downs. 

I use HotDoc to make an appointment at my Doctors’s surgery, it’s a really good system, you can see the doctors available appointments, book one and confirm, saves waiting to get through to the surgery by phone it’s so easy. The surgery also automatically sends a text prior to your appointment for you to confirm  you are attending. 

[Tulip1]

7 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

 

Thanks for the insight. I've no idea how the system works over here, and considering I'm a decade older than my wife I should probably know more because out of the two of us I'll be the most likely recipient of the service  

In the UK the average cost of aged care is now an eye-watering £700/week (£900/week for nursing care), so it'll not take you around 2 years to burn through £86,000.

 

My mums care home fees were £1100 a week although there’s many much cheaper.  It was really lovely though.   Money lasts longer than many think as people assume that amount comes off their available funds at that rate but it doesn’t as everyone has an income in old age which pays for part of it.  My mums fees were £4700 a month but her income was £2000 a month so the fees only dented her pot of money at a rate of £2700 a month.  Still eye watering and many don’t have an income that high in old age but even those on minimum pension (and very likely attendance allowance) use that towards the fees so for everyone the dip into their money is less than the actual cost.

[Tulip1]

7 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

That's still correct, and where we living in Chesterfield we were waiting a week to 10 days to see the quack - and you can't easily register with another doctor - you need to be in the catchment area for that surgery. After my wife had her operation 3 weeks ago she needed a dressing changing, and was able to walk into a doctors on Sunday without an appointment - even here on the Sunshine Coast.

Your standard GP practice is Monday to Friday but you can at any time walk into an out of hours clinic.  They are dotted about everywhere.  I took someone to one some weeks ago.  It was 9 miles away but you just turn up and get seen.  I hear all the time on local Facebook pages it’s hard to get an appointment and people wait for many days.  I rarely need to go so I didn’t know how true that was.  Last week I just wanted to run something past a doctor so phoned first thing expecting an appointment offered for two weeks later (which would have been fine) and was told I’d get a call from a GP.  Half an hour later that call came through.  Maybe I was just lucky but certainly that experience and the out of hours experience was fantastic. 

[Tulip1]

16 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

Only £86k?! That's a huge amount of money for most people.

This policy is an absolute disgrace and yet another shining of example of 'rip-off Britain'. I'm not getting into a debate about who should pay for aged care but this is a typically-cynical UK government policy, designed to protect the assets of the wealthy. Brits are currently leaving an average inheritance of around £125,000, so this £86,000 cap will be of little benefit to most. They might end up with an extra 10 grand in their estate, if their benefactors are lucky. Meanwhile, those without a brass razoo will continue to receive heavily-subsidized aged care, just as they have been heavily-subsidized throughout their entire lives. This system is outrageously unfair.

I don’t think it’s a disgrace.  The welfare system is for those that don’t have the means to pay.  Whether that’s their rent,  their council tax, their food etc, it’s in place to help.  If someone has a big pot of savings and/or a property (which is the same thing) they surely cannot expect the public purse to pay for their upkeep.  Where does it end if the state pay for wealthy pensioners to be looked after? Perhaps the state should then pay the private rent of high earners? Of course it shouldn’t as they are able to pay their own way.  I understand about wanting to leave your house to your kids etc but the fact is if you need expensive care then surely you should pay for it if you can.  My mum was in a care home before she died earlier this year.  I felt the same then.  Whilst the idea off the home my parents worked hard to buy would be swallowed up by the eye watering fees, it was her money and right that it be used to give her the best care in her time of need.  Why would I think the tax payers of this country should pay her bills just so that more could be left for me.   That just isn’t right.  Yes it sometimes sucks that those without get everything paid for but they don’t often get a choice as to what care home.  They get the cheapest in the area as the council have a maximum they will pay out.  It’s right that they get their care paid for by the state as they cannot pay for it themselves and they need looking after.  Those fortunate to choose what care home they want and have a sweet bank balance should pay.  I have always thought the £23k that could be disregarded was very low and out of fairness it should have been a bit more but however you dress that up it’s really saying it’s because the beneficiaries to the estate want to be left with more.  The maximum of £86k you will soon have to spend on your care is very fair.  That means many who own a house still leave quite a chunk of it to their family.  The cost of paying the care beyond that £86k is going to be huge to the state.  Surely no one can really think the state should pay the lot.

[Tulip1]

16 hours ago, Parley said:

I think I read somewhere the average stay in an Aged Care home is only around 18 months. That was Australia but people are going in to these facilities usually nearly at the end of life.

Yes that is the average I believe.  There was a few in my mums care home that has been there many years but equally some that only lasted a month or two so it evens out to that18 month average.  One of the ladies in my mums unit had been there four years, my mum only managed seven months. 

[Parley]

5 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I don’t think it’s a disgrace.  The welfare system is for those that don’t have the means to pay.  Whether that’s their rent,  their council tax, their food etc, it’s in place to help.  If someone has a big pot of savings and/or a property (which is the same thing) they surely cannot expect the public purse to pay for their upkeep.  Where does it end if the state pay for wealthy pensioners to be looked after? Perhaps the state should then pay the private rent of high earners? Of course it shouldn’t as they are able to pay their own way.  I understand about wanting to leave your house to your kids etc but the fact is if you need expensive care then surely you should pay for it if you can.  My mum was in a care home before she died earlier this year.  I felt the same then.  Whilst the idea off the home my parents worked hard to buy would be swallowed up by the eye watering fees, it was her money and right that it be used to give her the best care in her time of need.  Why would I think the tax payers of this country should pay her bills just so that more could be left for me.   That just isn’t right.  Yes it sometimes sucks that those without get everything paid for but they don’t often get a choice as to what care home.  They get the cheapest in the area as the council have a maximum they will pay out.  It’s right that they get their care paid for by the state as they cannot pay for it themselves and they need looking after.  Those fortunate to choose what care home they want and have a sweet bank balance should pay.  I have always thought the £23k that could be disregarded was very low and out of fairness it should have been a bit more but however you dress that up it’s really saying it’s because the beneficiaries to the estate want to be left with more.  The maximum of £86k you will soon have to spend on your care is very fair.  That means many who own a house still leave quite a chunk of it to their family.  The cost of paying the care beyond that £86k is going to be huge to the state.  Surely no one can really think the state should pay the lot.

I agree with you on all of that. Some people would love to go through their whole life from cradle to grave never having to pay for anything themself, including education, housing, food, medical care, aged care and probably finish off with their funeral. They will argue these things are human rights so they should not have to put their own hand in their pocket to pay for any of it.

The thing I don't like about the UK system (not that i follow it closely) is inheritance tax. People have built up wealth over their life by hard work and been taxed along the way. Why can't they leave it to their families without the government taking a big slice. Fortunately there is no inheritance tax in Australia and I hope it never comes in.

 

 

 

[ramot]

5 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I don’t think it’s a disgrace.  The welfare system is for those that don’t have the means to pay.  Whether that’s their rent,  their council tax, their food etc, it’s in place to help.  If someone has a big pot of savings and/or a property (which is the same thing) they surely cannot expect the public purse to pay for their upkeep.  Where does it end if the state pay for wealthy pensioners to be looked after? Perhaps the state should then pay the private rent of high earners? Of course it shouldn’t as they are able to pay their own way.  I understand about wanting to leave your house to your kids etc but the fact is if you need expensive care then surely you should pay for it if you can.  My mum was in a care home before she died earlier this year.  I felt the same then.  Whilst the idea off the home my parents worked hard to buy would be swallowed up by the eye watering fees, it was her money and right that it be used to give her the best care in her time of need.  Why would I think the tax payers of this country should pay her bills just so that more could be left for me.   That just isn’t right.  Yes it sometimes sucks that those without get everything paid for but they don’t often get a choice as to what care home.  They get the cheapest in the area as the council have a maximum they will pay out.  It’s right that they get their care paid for by the state as they cannot pay for it themselves and they need looking after.  Those fortunate to choose what care home they want and have a sweet bank balance should pay.  I have always thought the £23k that could be disregarded was very low and out of fairness it should have been a bit more but however you dress that up it’s really saying it’s because the beneficiaries to the estate want to be left with more.  The maximum of £86k you will soon have to spend on your care is very fair.  That means many who own a house still leave quite a chunk of it to their family.  The cost of paying the care beyond that £86k is going to be huge to the state.  Surely no one can really think the state should pay the lot.

I am surprised that the amount of 23,000 pds hasn’t changed! since my mother sadly died 20 years ago. The parent in care was I think allowed  to give 3,000pds away to family annually with one year back dated, and a gift to a grandchild if getting married? As to your comment that ‘ those who have a sweet bank balance should pay’ many people including my mother, a single parent since the 1950’s, who managed through thrift to buy a house, in a not very expensive area, certainly lived hand to mouth relying on the state pension, so even with pension and attendance allowance there wasn’t much in the pot. You can’t assume that because someone owns a property they are wealthy. 

Will be interesting to see how the new system works long term. Will comment on the Australian system when we need to know more, hopefully a few more years away still, but I know it’s expensive here as well.

[Wanderer Returns]

6 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

I don’t think it’s a disgrace.  The welfare system is for those that don’t have the means to pay.  Whether that’s their rent,  their council tax, their food etc, it’s in place to help.  If someone has a big pot of savings and/or a property (which is the same thing) they surely cannot expect the public purse to pay for their upkeep.  Where does it end if the state pay for wealthy pensioners to be looked after? Perhaps the state should then pay the private rent of high earners? Of course it shouldn’t as they are able to pay their own way.  I understand about wanting to leave your house to your kids etc but the fact is if you need expensive care then surely you should pay for it if you can.  My mum was in a care home before she died earlier this year.  I felt the same then.  Whilst the idea off the home my parents worked hard to buy would be swallowed up by the eye watering fees, it was her money and right that it be used to give her the best care in her time of need.  Why would I think the tax payers of this country should pay her bills just so that more could be left for me.   That just isn’t right.  Yes it sometimes sucks that those without get everything paid for but they don’t often get a choice as to what care home.  They get the cheapest in the area as the council have a maximum they will pay out.  It’s right that they get their care paid for by the state as they cannot pay for it themselves and they need looking after.  Those fortunate to choose what care home they want and have a sweet bank balance should pay.  I have always thought the £23k that could be disregarded was very low and out of fairness it should have been a bit more but however you dress that up it’s really saying it’s because the beneficiaries to the estate want to be left with more.  The maximum of £86k you will soon have to spend on your care is very fair.  That means many who own a house still leave quite a chunk of it to their family.  The cost of paying the care beyond that £86k is going to be huge to the state.  Surely no one can really think the state should pay the lot.

 

34 minutes ago, ramot said:

I am surprised that the amount of 23,000 pds hasn’t changed! since my mother sadly died 20 years ago. The parent in care was I think allowed  to give 3,000pds away to family annually with one year back dated, and a gift to a grandchild if getting married? As to your comment that ‘ those who have a sweet bank balance should pay’ many people including my mother, a single parent since the 1950’s, who managed through thrift to buy a house, in a not very expensive area, certainly lived hand to mouth relying on the state pension, so even with pension and attendance allowance there wasn’t much in the pot. You can’t assume that because someone owns a property they are wealthy. 

Will be interesting to see how the new system works long term. Will comment on the Australian system when we need to know more, hopefully a few more years away still, but I know it’s expensive here as well.

@Tulip1 it's the £86k cap that I consider unfair - not that people should have to pay something towards their aged care - although that's also debatable depending on what you believe should be state-funded in a civilized society. The £23,250 threshold hasn't been raised in decades. If they had increased that to say £50k, it would have been fairer. My mum received subsidized homecare (4 visits a day at the end of her life), and the savings threshold for her to receive that was £50,000, but that this figure is set by local authority - not the government.

The £86k cap isn't going to help most people because 18 months in aged care is likely to cost £50-70k. I can't see how you can call a system fair where someone with nothing pays nothing, someone with £120k in assets pays £86k, and someone with £1m is still pays £86k. As I mentioned before, the cap is just an umbrella to protect the rich.

[Parley]

14 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

 

Thanks for the insight. I've no idea how the system works over here, and considering I'm a decade older than my wife I should probably know more because out of the two of us I'll be the most likely recipient of the service  

In the UK the average cost of aged care is now an eye-watering £700/week (£900/week for nursing care), so it'll not take you around 2 years to burn through £86,000.

 

By the way and as this thread is about Australia. There is an exemption where the other spouse wants to remain in the family home.

So in your case where you are quite a bit older, if you needed to go into care but your wife was quite able to look after herself remaining at home, I believe there is some exemption process and you are not forced to sell the family home in that case.

But the rules do change and have changed since my Mum went through it so it is worth doing some research but probably you can leave that until you are well over 70 as the rules will inevitably change.

[Wanderer Returns]

1 hour ago, Parley said:

I agree with you on all of that. Some people would love to go through their whole life from cradle to grave never having to pay for anything themself, including education, housing, food, medical care, aged care and probably finish off with their funeral. They will argue these things are human rights so they should not have to put their own hand in their pocket to pay for any of it.

You've just described life in Scandinavian countries, which in spite of the weather are generally regarded as offering their citizens the best quality of life in world.

Yes, taxes are higher to pay for it, but personally I'm happy to pay more tax if it means not living in a country surrounded by poor, sick, stupid people. Their systems benefits everyone - not just the wealthy.

[Paul1Perth]

15 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

Just the fact that it is open 7 days is reassuring. If I remember rightly,  most GPs in England worked Mon to Friday?

I rang the Doctor I'm registered with and couldn't get an appointment till this Thursday, which I've still kept. He bulk bills so there's no cost attached.

I was thinking it would just go off but it didn't. My wife said if it's like that in the morning it's either St Johns or ED. There's a day clinic at Joondalup ED too mind you.

I've been to St John before a couple of times, when they bulk billed. When we got back from Queensland we'd been snorkling on the Great Barrier Reef and I'd scratched my ankle on coral. We had a week in Cairns after and it was slowly getting more red and sore. When we got home it felt really sore after a couple of days, showed the wife and she said it was tracking up my leg and looked like it needed lancing.

They were really good, always get a full check up first, blood pressure, heart rate, temperature then the doc comes round. Got loads of yellow puss out and when they asked how I'd done it explained coral is very dangerous and has all sorts of nasty microbes. Sent the stuff of for analysis and gave me anti- biotics. Rang me after a couple of days to tell me to go back for another check. Results had come back and there were 2 pretty serious infections. Luckily it was much better already but they gave me a different anti-biotic.

They are thorough. They have a dental section too for emergency dentistry. My wifes friend was sick and went there when she was on holiday. I think she got charged for meds but it wasn't much.

[Paul1Perth]

15 hours ago, Wanderer Returns said:

That's still correct, and where we living in Chesterfield we were waiting a week to 10 days to see the quack - and you can't easily register with another doctor - you need to be in the catchment area for that surgery. After my wife had her operation 3 weeks ago she needed a dressing changing, and was able to walk into a doctors on Sunday without an appointment - even here on the Sunshine Coast.

Chesterfield is where I was born and grew up. That's the one in Derbyshire, in case there's another on the Gold Coast

It wouldn't be that busy there either. We lived near Stockport and it was worse to get an appointment there. Anywhere round London or big cities would be bad. Guess that's why a lot of people just go to ED when they don't really need to.

[Wanderer Returns]

1 hour ago, Paul1Perth said:

Chesterfield is where I was born and grew up. That's the one in Derbyshire, in case there's another on the Gold Coast

It wouldn't be that busy there either. We lived near Stockport and it was worse to get an appointment there. Anywhere round London or big cities would be bad. Guess that's why a lot of people just go to ED when they don't really need to.

Yes, that's the one. There's no Chesterfield on the Gold Coast, although I imagine there's one lurking somewhere in outback Australia - but without the crooked spire  

It'd have to be pretty serious to get me anywhere near an A&E department in the UK. The 'target waiting time' to be seen is 4 hours, so lord knows how long people actually have to wait. 

[Tulip1]

6 hours ago, Parley said:

I agree with you on all of that. Some people would love to go through their whole life from cradle to grave never having to pay for anything themself, including education, housing, food, medical care, aged care and probably finish off with their funeral. They will argue these things are human rights so they should not have to put their own hand in their pocket to pay for any of it.

The thing I don't like about the UK system (not that i follow it closely) is inheritance tax. People have built up wealth over their life by hard work and been taxed along the way. Why can't they leave it to their families without the government taking a big slice. Fortunately there is no inheritance tax in Australia and I hope it never comes in.

 

 

 

For many people there is no inheritance tax to pay.  It’s certainly not charged on everything someone has. The threshold starts at £325k so anyones estate that has less than that doesn’t incur any tax.  It gets better than that though as providing someone is leaving their home to their children or grandchildren they get an additional £175k allowance.  It’s called the residence nil rate band. This means that person can have a £500k estate that won’t incur any inheritance tax.  Anything above that will do.  So for many people there is no tax to pay and if there is it’s only on anything above £500k.  In the case of a married couple it’s double.  The one that dies first doesn’t have any tax payable on the assets they leave to their spouse.  Their inheritance tax allowances also pass to their spouse.  So when the second one dies they have their own £325k disregard as well as their late spouses £325k disregard.  They also have their £175k residence nil rate band and that of their late husbands.  So they have £1m of assets that aren’t subject to tax.  Again anything over that figure is.  Also the rules change a little for estates worth over £2m. 

So when people talk about inheritance tax they often think everyone pays it but actually it’s only those with sizeable assets that do and the amount that is disregarded is quite high.  Still perhaps unfair as you say. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Tulip1

[Tulip1]

7 hours ago, ramot said:

I am surprised that the amount of 23,000 pds hasn’t changed! since my mother sadly died 20 years ago. The parent in care was I think allowed  to give 3,000pds away to family annually with one year back dated, and a gift to a grandchild if getting married? As to your comment that ‘ those who have a sweet bank balance should pay’ many people including my mother, a single parent since the 1950’s, who managed through thrift to buy a house, in a not very expensive area, certainly lived hand to mouth relying on the state pension, so even with pension and attendance allowance there wasn’t much in the pot. You can’t assume that because someone owns a property they are wealthy. 

Will be interesting to see how the new system works long term. Will comment on the Australian system when we need to know more, hopefully a few more years away still, but I know it’s expensive here as well.

The £3000 a year gift still applies if the person wishes to gift it.  What gets complicated is when power of attorney is in place, giving away money is a little different then.  If the person has lost mental capacity then the attorney can still give modest gifts out providing the person did that when they had capacity.  So if they always gave you £50 for your birthday that can continue because it’s reasonable to assume they’d still want to.  If for years when they had capacity they used their allowance up and gifted their children the £3000 allowed each year it can be continued, again because it’s reasonable to assume that’s what they wanted.  But, you can’t suddenly start taking your £3000 a year from someone who doesn’t hold capacity as you cannot know that’s what they would want and as attorney, you have a legal obligation to look after their money rather than help yourself to it.  I expect many attorneys start it up though and it probably falls through the net but they shouldn’t really.  Your example of a gift to the grandchild if getting married would be ok as it’s reasonable that granny/grandad would want to do that and would have had they retained capacity.  

Edited September 28, 2021 by Tulip1

[newjez]

1 hour ago, Tulip1 said:

For many people there is no inheritance tax to pay.  It’s certainly not charged on everything someone has. The threshold starts at £325k so anyones estate that has less than that doesn’t incur any tax.  It gets better than that though as providing someone is leaving their home to their children or grandchildren they get an additional £175k allowance.  It’s called the residence nil rate band. This means that person can have a £500k estate that won’t incur any inheritance tax.  Anything above that will do.  So for many people there is no tax to pay and if there is it’s only on anything above £500k.  In the case of a married couple it’s double.  The one that dies first doesn’t have any tax payable on the assets they leave to their spouse.  Their inheritance tax allowances also pass to their spouse.  So when the second one dies they have their own £325k disregard as well as their late spouses £325k disregard.  They also have their £175k residence nil rate band and that of their late husbands.  So they have £1m of assets that aren’t subject to tax.  Again anything over that figure is.  Also the rules change a little for estates worth over £2m. 

So when people talk about inheritance tax they often think everyone pays it but actually it’s only those with sizeable assets that do and the amount that is disregarded is quite high.  Still perhaps unfair as you say. 

Those with sizable amounts can avoid it with trusts and such, and gifts are discounted over seven years. I think inheritance tax is only there for the upper middle class.

I would love to know how much the government actually gets and from whom.

Edited September 28, 2021 by newjez

[newjez]

6 hours ago, Paul1Perth said:

I rang the Doctor I'm registered with and couldn't get an appointment till this Thursday, which I've still kept. He bulk bills so there's no cost attached.

I was thinking it would just go off but it didn't. My wife said if it's like that in the morning it's either St Johns or ED. There's a day clinic at Joondalup ED too mind you.

I've been to St John before a couple of times, when they bulk billed. When we got back from Queensland we'd been snorkling on the Great Barrier Reef and I'd scratched my ankle on coral. We had a week in Cairns after and it was slowly getting more red and sore. When we got home it felt really sore after a couple of days, showed the wife and she said it was tracking up my leg and looked like it needed lancing.

They were really good, always get a full check up first, blood pressure, heart rate, temperature then the doc comes round. Got loads of yellow puss out and when they asked how I'd done it explained coral is very dangerous and has all sorts of nasty microbes. Sent the stuff of for analysis and gave me anti- biotics. Rang me after a couple of days to tell me to go back for another check. Results had come back and there were 2 pretty serious infections. Luckily it was much better already but they gave me a different anti-biotic.

They are thorough. They have a dental section too for emergency dentistry. My wifes friend was sick and went there when she was on holiday. I think she got charged for meds but it wasn't much.

I know several people who have had that vertigo type thing Paul. They can have it for quite some time. There are pills for it and they do work, so make sure you see the right doctor.

Incidentally, I spoke to my boss yesterday, and he had to take his wife to A&E but they refused to see him and said that wasn't his A&E and needed to go elsewhere. Never heard of that happening before. He lives in Kent, so maybe it's a Kent thing.

[Wanderer Returns]

15 hours ago, newjez said:

Those with sizable amounts can avoid it with trusts and such, and gifts are discounted over seven years. I think inheritance tax is only there for the upper middle class.

I would love to know how much the government actually gets and from whom.

Very true. I recall David Cameron's father leaving an estate valued at £2.75 million, which was reduced to just £2.7million after liabilities. Now that is some effective tax planning!

Successive governments have realized the British public consider inheritance tax to be an unfair tax and they'll do all sorts to avoid it, including siphoning off large amounts of capital to children in their later lives - meaning there's less money to pay for aged care.

[Parley]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Returns said:

Very true. I recall David Cameron's father leaving an estate valued at £2.75 million, which was reduced to just £2.7million after liabilities. Now that is some effective tax planning!

Successive governments have realized the British public consider inheritance tax to be an unfair tax and they'll do all sorts to avoid it, including siphoning off large amounts of capital to children in their later lives - meaning there's less money to pay for aged care.

doesn't sound like much of a reduction.

40% tax is a completre ripoff.