Mum gives me her house, how to deal with care costs later on
Discussion
walm said:
I don't believe there is a moral responsibility to pay more than you have to though - isn't that taking it too far?
Just stick to the rules. That's why they are there.
That's true, but in this case the individual is attempting to hide their assets so they don't pay what they "have" to, letting everyone else foot the bill. This is essentially fraud. Many people seem to be of the belief that they/their offspring should retain whatever cash/assets they have, whilst everyone else pays for them instead. Strange.Just stick to the rules. That's why they are there.
Ozzie Osmond said:
The risk area IMO is in the difference between "the estate" and "the combined estates".
The mother would be well advised to seek guidance from a solicitor.
even allowing for any possible "saving" of care costs i think it is a monumentally bad idea. Just too many variables at play leaving the mum out on her ear.The mother would be well advised to seek guidance from a solicitor.
Jockman said:
In reality many families take the council contribution and add their own contribution to it.
When you say "many" - is there any way of quantifying that, even in percentage terms?It strikes me that very few families eligible for the council to pick up the tab, would be the sort of families able to afford the uplift from the council rates to that of a good quality private home.
The council contribution (IIRC in the £500/wk range) to the typical decent private home cost (more like a £1000/wk) for, potentially, many years. My Mum has been in a couple of homes for coming up to 10yrs now.
rsbmw said:
walm said:
I don't believe there is a moral responsibility to pay more than you have to though - isn't that taking it too far?
Just stick to the rules. That's why they are there.
That's true, but in this case the individual is attempting to hide their assets so they don't pay what they "have" to, letting everyone else foot the bill. This is essentially fraud. Many people seem to be of the belief that they/their offspring should retain whatever cash/assets they have, whilst everyone else pays for them instead. Strange.Just stick to the rules. That's why they are there.
But if there were a rule that said something like "any gift 7 years or older is exempt" like with IHT then the original question seems to be asking about such a rule.
I think he wants clarity on LEGITIMATE ways to sensibly plan to minimise the chance of losing an inheritance.
In other words, he is asking for advice about AVOIDANCE not EVASION. And that's fine, isn't it?
Saying it's "hiding assets" is pejorative to say the least!
walm said:
Of course you can read it like that.
But if there were a rule that said something like "any gift 7 years or older is exempt" like with IHT then the original question seems to be asking about such a rule.
I think he wants clarity on LEGITIMATE ways to sensibly plan to minimise the chance of losing an inheritance.
In other words, he is asking for advice about AVOIDANCE not EVASION. And that's fine, isn't it?
Saying it's "hiding assets" is pejorative to say the least!
In the OP he states that the principal reason for the transfer would be to protect against care home costs - the intention is clear. But if there were a rule that said something like "any gift 7 years or older is exempt" like with IHT then the original question seems to be asking about such a rule.
I think he wants clarity on LEGITIMATE ways to sensibly plan to minimise the chance of losing an inheritance.
In other words, he is asking for advice about AVOIDANCE not EVASION. And that's fine, isn't it?
Saying it's "hiding assets" is pejorative to say the least!
However with hopefully many years between the transfer and any care being required (if at all) it may well work.
I just think there are too many downsides for the mother.
s
t happens all the time.Sheepshanks said:
Jockman said:
In reality many families take the council contribution and add their own contribution to it.
When you say "many" - is there any way of quantifying that, even in percentage terms?It strikes me that very few families eligible for the council to pick up the tab, would be the sort of families able to afford the uplift from the council rates to that of a good quality private home.
The council contribution (IIRC in the £500/wk range) to the typical decent private home cost (more like a £1000/wk) for, potentially, many years. My Mum has been in a couple of homes for coming up to 10yrs now.
As for % I could not say. The people I know or deal with tend to be richer than their parents.
When I was running Sheltered Schemes (different kettle of fish) the amount of self-funders was in the region of 25% with the rest on state support.
desolate said:
In the OP he states that the principal reason for the transfer would be to protect against care home costs - the intention is clear.
However with hopefully many years between the transfer and any care being required (if at all) it may well work.
I just think there are too many downsides for the mother.
st happens all the time.
It's probably worth repeating that she may not need much care, if any at all.However with hopefully many years between the transfer and any care being required (if at all) it may well work.
I just think there are too many downsides for the mother.
s
t happens all the time.Jockman said:
desolate said:
In the OP he states that the principal reason for the transfer would be to protect against care home costs - the intention is clear.
However with hopefully many years between the transfer and any care being required (if at all) it may well work.
I just think there are too many downsides for the mother.
st happens all the time.
It's probably worth repeating that she may not need much care, if any at all.However with hopefully many years between the transfer and any care being required (if at all) it may well work.
I just think there are too many downsides for the mother.
s
t happens all the time.desolate said:
In the OP he states that the principal reason for the transfer would be to protect against care home costs - the intention is clear.
Absolutely.So (to stick with my IHT analogy) isn't it exactly the same as someone asking:
"My mum wants to gift me £1m, how long does she have to live for me to avoid IHT?"
Answer: 7 years.
The intention is to AVOID tax (or in this case avoid care home claw-backs).
Isn't it the same thing?
Genuine question! It just seems the same to me.
desolate said:
walm said:
Of course you can read it like that.
But if there were a rule that said something like "any gift 7 years or older is exempt" like with IHT then the original question seems to be asking about such a rule.
I think he wants clarity on LEGITIMATE ways to sensibly plan to minimise the chance of losing an inheritance.
In other words, he is asking for advice about AVOIDANCE not EVASION. And that's fine, isn't it?
Saying it's "hiding assets" is pejorative to say the least!
In the OP he states that the principal reason for the transfer would be to protect against care home costs - the intention is clear. But if there were a rule that said something like "any gift 7 years or older is exempt" like with IHT then the original question seems to be asking about such a rule.
I think he wants clarity on LEGITIMATE ways to sensibly plan to minimise the chance of losing an inheritance.
In other words, he is asking for advice about AVOIDANCE not EVASION. And that's fine, isn't it?
Saying it's "hiding assets" is pejorative to say the least!
However with hopefully many years between the transfer and any care being required (if at all) it may well work.
I just think there are too many downsides for the mother.
s
t happens all the time.I did this.
Council care homes are fine, very often people are put into private by councils anyway. It's natural not to want to lose a family heirloom in this way so I don't get why people are fussing and in any event she may not need it anyway.
We did a transfer and it was a few years later when she did in fact need care so I filled in the assets form correctly that she didn't own a property. Job done.
I don't know what it is now but 10 years ago to avoid paying care home fees you had to declare no property owned in the preceding 2 years.
Fraud? Not a bit of it! She and my late father would have been mortified if their estate had had to be ringfenced by social services in this way. I must say I had researched it before we transferred and found no information at all just smarmy insurance products and zilch advice so the 2 year cut off was a great relief.
Council care homes are fine, very often people are put into private by councils anyway. It's natural not to want to lose a family heirloom in this way so I don't get why people are fussing and in any event she may not need it anyway.
We did a transfer and it was a few years later when she did in fact need care so I filled in the assets form correctly that she didn't own a property. Job done.
I don't know what it is now but 10 years ago to avoid paying care home fees you had to declare no property owned in the preceding 2 years.
Fraud? Not a bit of it! She and my late father would have been mortified if their estate had had to be ringfenced by social services in this way. I must say I had researched it before we transferred and found no information at all just smarmy insurance products and zilch advice so the 2 year cut off was a great relief.
walm said:
Absolutely.
So (to stick with my IHT analogy) isn't it exactly the same as someone asking:
"My mum wants to gift me £1m, how long does she have to live for me to avoid IHT?"
Answer: 7 years.
The intention is to AVOID tax (or in this case avoid care home claw-backs).
Isn't it the same thing?
Genuine question! It just seems the same to me.
It's not the same, there are clear rules around IHT and that does push it into avoidance/planning. There is no rule (as far as I'm aware) that allows you to give away your assets far enough in advance and then have taxpayers cover the cost of your care later in life.So (to stick with my IHT analogy) isn't it exactly the same as someone asking:
"My mum wants to gift me £1m, how long does she have to live for me to avoid IHT?"
Answer: 7 years.
The intention is to AVOID tax (or in this case avoid care home claw-backs).
Isn't it the same thing?
Genuine question! It just seems the same to me.
Just because the local authority might not be able to prove what happened and thus fix the situation, doesn't make it any less morally reprehensible.
rsbmw said:
Absolutely, the intention is clear and is one of evasion, not of avoidance (reducing your liability to the legal minimum). The OP essentially states that in the event of the individual needing care, how can we make sure someone else foots the bill and we get to keep the cash/property that would otherwise fund it. Of course care may never be needed and it would be a moot point especially with IHT out of the picture (assuming that doesn't change). I just fundamentally disagree with this entitled mindset, this and "I'll take whatever benefits I can even if I don't need them" (e.g. winter allowance for rich pensioners) are two examples of what is wrong with society.
What so someone who was worked bloody hard all their life can have their assets dipped into and depleted in their final years as against someone who has been on benefits all their life who gets it funded? Get real. What would OP's mother want? She's got to be happy with this and she is, I would be happy with my son to have an Aston on me at the end.
V6Pushfit said:
What so someone who was worked bloody hard all their life can have their assets dipped into and depleted in their final years as against someone who has been on benefits all their life who gets it funded? Get real.
What would OP's mother want? She's got to be happy with this and she is, I would be happy with my son to have an Aston on me at the end.
Yes, why wouldn't you be liable to pay for yourself when you can afford it? Not wanting to is not a valid argument. Whilst it's vague and difficult to prove, it's clear this isn't something that is "allowed".What would OP's mother want? She's got to be happy with this and she is, I would be happy with my son to have an Aston on me at the end.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff