Care home - protecting assets
Discussion
footnote said:
Shouldn't you equally be criticising child benefit, another non-means tested benefit which contributed to the wealth of his parents, paid for by others?
£20/week for the first child, plus £13/week for additional children?Taxable if you earn more than £50k, taxed so it's cancelled completely if you earn more than £60k?
Not quite the same, is it?
TooMany2cvs said:
footnote said:
Shouldn't you equally be criticising child benefit, another non-means tested benefit which contributed to the wealth of his parents, paid for by others?
£20/week for the first child, plus £13/week for additional children?Taxable if you earn more than £50k, taxed so it's cancelled completely if you earn more than £60k?
Not quite the same, is it?
What's the average annual salary?
What's the average family size?
How many years is child benefit paid for?
Be realistic.
There was an episode of an NHS documentary recently where a woman had premature triplets I think in hospital - cost of treatment of her and babies - more than £500,000 - multiply that for population wide normal births - it's not peanuts you know.
And that's before the costs of education.
If you disagree with taxation policy then disagree properly.
Is it not quite the same? Think on. It's all the same.
Armitage.Shanks said:
They now live rent free, maintain the property but don't own any of it 
Isn't there a tax implication of doing that?On care fees side, it's a can of worms. Certainly councils already ask if you EVER owned property and they're digging into it in increasing detail. If they make a determination that you've come to some arrangement to avoid care costs then they'll pursue for money.
WinstonWolf said:
What happens to the person who has a medical need for 24/7 care when the money runs out?
Perhaps not directly relevant to your point but our relative had enough money to be sef-funding for a couple of years before she reached the level for council funding.She lived alone but was putting an increasing burden on social services and was a danger to herself - social services said you should find her a home.
Eventually we found one we liked which charged more than what the council contribution would be if she wasn't self-funding. There was no council contribution at this stage.
The issue was then, what will happen when her money runs out?
Well, when she has spent down to the permitted savings cap, the council would contribute but in order to stay in that home, she would need to top-up the fees from her own/our money.
We asked social services what the home would do if/when all the money was gone and we're met with a shoulder shrug - who knows, they said - they could move her out or keep her.
She died before it reached that point.
WinstonWolf said:
What happens to the person who has a medical need for 24/7 care when the money runs out?
If there's a medical need then they shouldn't have to pay anyway, that's what NHS Continuing Healthcare is for.Unless the person is near end-of-life getting Continuing Healthcare is another matter though.
Sheepshanks said:
Isn't there a tax implication of doing that?
On care fees side, it's a can of worms. Certainly councils already ask if you EVER owned property and they're digging into it in increasing detail. If they make a determination that you've come to some arrangement to avoid care costs then they'll pursue for money.
They will sniff if you've recently tried to offload to avoid dues. Plus with the 7yr IHT rule I would think if there is a question of gifting any assets that will swallow it up. I'm passed that stage anyway. The dilemma is what is the point having all your dough tied up in a house that you can never spend unles you downsize/rent etc. I don't ask for rent as I'm assuming the capital growth will be the same or better than the cash in the bank would give me.On care fees side, it's a can of worms. Certainly councils already ask if you EVER owned property and they're digging into it in increasing detail. If they make a determination that you've come to some arrangement to avoid care costs then they'll pursue for money.
This way they're free to do what they want with their money whilst they still can. If they need care then obviously what they have got will be assessed and a contribution asked for or they can plan for it if they so wish.
I never planned for any inhertitance and my offspring will not have/expect any either. Some people leave money to kids who they never see or dont help elderly parents out in times of need. For that you get sweet FA in my book.
If there's some left then fair enough but my plan is to spend most of it, retire early to live well and should my outlook be predictable I will be off to Dignitas as both my wife and I have a clear view that where quality of life is affected and we can make the decision that's the route we take. I've no intention of being a drain on the system/anybody. Life/death is rather black/white to us. Do I want to be smelling of piss and boiled cabbage? Nope.
Armitage.Shanks said:
They will sniff if you've recently tried to offload to avoid dues. Plus with the 7yr IHT rule I would think if there is a question of gifting any assets that will swallow it up. I'm passed that stage anyway. The dilemma is what is the point having all your dough tied up in a house that you can never spend unles you downsize/rent etc. I don't ask for rent as I'm assuming the capital growth will be the same or better than the cash in the bank would give me.
This way they're free to do what they want with their money whilst they still can. If they need care then obviously what they have got will be assessed and a contribution asked for or they can plan for it if they so wish.
I never planned for any inhertitance and my offspring will not have/expect any either. Some people leave money to kids who they never see or dont help elderly parents out in times of need. For that you get sweet FA in my book.
If there's some left then fair enough but my plan is to spend most of it, retire early to live well and should my outlook be predictable I will be off to Dignitas as both my wife and I have a clear view that where quality of life is affected and we can make the decision that's the route we take. I've no intention of being a drain on the system/anybody. Life/death is rather black/white to us. Do I want to be smelling of piss and boiled cabbage? Nope.
Agreed. This way they're free to do what they want with their money whilst they still can. If they need care then obviously what they have got will be assessed and a contribution asked for or they can plan for it if they so wish.
I never planned for any inhertitance and my offspring will not have/expect any either. Some people leave money to kids who they never see or dont help elderly parents out in times of need. For that you get sweet FA in my book.
If there's some left then fair enough but my plan is to spend most of it, retire early to live well and should my outlook be predictable I will be off to Dignitas as both my wife and I have a clear view that where quality of life is affected and we can make the decision that's the route we take. I've no intention of being a drain on the system/anybody. Life/death is rather black/white to us. Do I want to be smelling of piss and boiled cabbage? Nope.
But let's say you are left some - would you then blow it all giving your kids none or would you aim to pass down the similar value you were given?
I think ideally if they have a house / on the ladder then it's a nice bit of comfort for the parents. If however they don't or are really struggling then maybe you need to address it as no one would want their kids to have a lesser life than themselves
Armitage.Shanks said:
Sheepshanks said:
Isn't there a tax implication of doing that?
On care fees side, it's a can of worms. Certainly councils already ask if you EVER owned property and they're digging into it in increasing detail. If they make a determination that you've come to some arrangement to avoid care costs then they'll pursue for money.
They will sniff if you've recently tried to offload to avoid dues. Plus with the 7yr IHT rule I would think if there is a question of gifting any assets that will swallow it up. I'm passed that stage anyway. The dilemma is what is the point having all your dough tied up in a house that you can never spend unles you downsize/rent etc. I don't ask for rent as I'm assuming the capital growth will be the same or better than the cash in the bank would give me.On care fees side, it's a can of worms. Certainly councils already ask if you EVER owned property and they're digging into it in increasing detail. If they make a determination that you've come to some arrangement to avoid care costs then they'll pursue for money.
This way they're free to do what they want with their money whilst they still can. If they need care then obviously what they have got will be assessed and a contribution asked for or they can plan for it if they so wish.
I never planned for any inhertitance and my offspring will not have/expect any either. Some people leave money to kids who they never see or dont help elderly parents out in times of need. For that you get sweet FA in my book.
If there's some left then fair enough but my plan is to spend most of it, retire early to live well and should my outlook be predictable I will be off to Dignitas as both my wife and I have a clear view that where quality of life is affected and we can make the decision that's the route we take. I've no intention of being a drain on the system/anybody. Life/death is rather black/white to us. Do I want to be smelling of piss and boiled cabbage? Nope.
Having grown up amongst generations of poor people I've realised that the elite rich, powerful, influential landed families (call them what you will) didn't get that way by not keeping their money to themselves - you don't improve the lot of your particular 'gene pool/clan' by giving it away/pissing it up against a wall.
If it's an act of hate/revenge - fair enough - otherwise it achieves nothing but prolong relative poverty for your descendants and wipes out anything you personally may have achieved in life materially.
It's an insult to those with nothing and for me, would probably indicate that I'd failed in finding/making worthy benefactors - but that's just me - each to their own.
On the Dignitas issue, I would agree.
My only caution would be, you almost always have to do it too soon, unless you happen to live in Switzerland.
Nobody wants to die and for many people, if they're still able to consider the thought that 'Now, is the time' then they'll probably still think - 'But I'm still thinking clearly, surely I can have a bit longer?'
And before you know it, you can't do it on your own, you need help and who do you ask (if you're still able to speak) who'll be willing to be charged with Assisting a Suicide?
You need to have the means to hand to do it here too if you live in the UK
Robertj21a said:
Rangeroverover said:
Why do kids feel they have a right to inherit anything
Me, Me, Me syndrome - very noticeable in recent years.Look on the bright side, in the future those types of people won't be so keen when instead of inheriting a house they're inheriting the remains of a 100 year mortgage.
NickCQ said:
Well this is becoming ugly.
I think there is another dimension to this for me, which that the primary source of wealth for a lot of older people in this situation today is not their lifetime savings but in fact their residential property investments.
Given that inflation in property prices of the last 30 years has acted as a massive transfer of wealth to those that already own property (more often than not the older generation), I am somewhat relaxed about about it being liquidated to fund care. It was never 'earned' in the first place, more akin to a lottery win based on postcode and when you bought your house.
Almost to the point that there is a very valid argument that property wealth not form part of the IHT allowance but used specifically to directly or indirectly fund late care costs so as to relieve the burden on the working generations who are having the double whammy of funding the hugely elevated property costs and the burgeoning care bills. It is accidental and synthetic wealth and could be put to better use. I think there is another dimension to this for me, which that the primary source of wealth for a lot of older people in this situation today is not their lifetime savings but in fact their residential property investments.
Given that inflation in property prices of the last 30 years has acted as a massive transfer of wealth to those that already own property (more often than not the older generation), I am somewhat relaxed about about it being liquidated to fund care. It was never 'earned' in the first place, more akin to a lottery win based on postcode and when you bought your house.
My Grandad got diagnosed with dementia in his later years (he died on NYE 2015). My Mum and Dad got calls from the police several times as he had managed to wander out of his house at 3am to find his wife (she died ~12 years before). They also received a call when he broke his bedroom window and was screaming for help in the early hours because he thought the house was on fire.
He eventually went into a specialist dementia care home at a cost of ~£800 per week. He had a ~£250k property which was sold to fund his care (no other notably savings per se) - if he had been of sound mind he would never have wanted to allow things to get this far (he wasn't 'tight' but of that generation where you didn't make a fuss). It was incredibly sad seeing the man that I looked up to who taught me to change brake pads and discs, undertake routine maintenance and even fit a new exhaust to my mk2 Golf on Christmas day, deteriorate in this way.
The level of care at the home was excellent but I always remember what a doctor told me during the time; "the average stay in a care home is 18 months". Everything was managed for him, everything done, he didn't have to lift a finger, which was great. We knew that he was safe and, despite the odd bump here and there, realised that it was the right decision. Despite this, he went downhill pretty rapidly in the home (much like a much younger lady, probably in her late 50s) and died almost a day to his 18 month stay. I've still got the mk2 Golf in the garage that he helped work on.
Having written that I realised that there's not much point to it other than that dementia is a c-unit and I pity anyone, including those suffering and those affected by the disease. Protecting one's assets (or, rather, protecting the assets of someone close to them) was something that my parents thought about but they deemed it more important that he get the right care (he could have lived with my parents for example, negating the costs) in his final years. Morality aside, I think that's the most important point.
He eventually went into a specialist dementia care home at a cost of ~£800 per week. He had a ~£250k property which was sold to fund his care (no other notably savings per se) - if he had been of sound mind he would never have wanted to allow things to get this far (he wasn't 'tight' but of that generation where you didn't make a fuss). It was incredibly sad seeing the man that I looked up to who taught me to change brake pads and discs, undertake routine maintenance and even fit a new exhaust to my mk2 Golf on Christmas day, deteriorate in this way.
The level of care at the home was excellent but I always remember what a doctor told me during the time; "the average stay in a care home is 18 months". Everything was managed for him, everything done, he didn't have to lift a finger, which was great. We knew that he was safe and, despite the odd bump here and there, realised that it was the right decision. Despite this, he went downhill pretty rapidly in the home (much like a much younger lady, probably in her late 50s) and died almost a day to his 18 month stay. I've still got the mk2 Golf in the garage that he helped work on.
Having written that I realised that there's not much point to it other than that dementia is a c-unit and I pity anyone, including those suffering and those affected by the disease. Protecting one's assets (or, rather, protecting the assets of someone close to them) was something that my parents thought about but they deemed it more important that he get the right care (he could have lived with my parents for example, negating the costs) in his final years. Morality aside, I think that's the most important point.
footnote said:
Can't agree with you on the inheritance issue.
Having grown up amongst generations of poor people I've realised that the elite rich, powerful, influential landed families (call them what you will) didn't get that way by not keeping their money to themselves - you don't improve the lot of your particular 'gene pool/clan' by giving it away/pissing it up against a wall.
Not disagreeing chum as my offspring will be OK given that the value in the main house will be a starter. There will probably be a good wedge left as nobody knows when the grim reaper is around the corner plus I've (more than) helped out along the way which hopefully will get paid back with some support in my old age.Having grown up amongst generations of poor people I've realised that the elite rich, powerful, influential landed families (call them what you will) didn't get that way by not keeping their money to themselves - you don't improve the lot of your particular 'gene pool/clan' by giving it away/pissing it up against a wall.
My point is my in-laws are leaving their assets to grandkids who they never see and take no interest in their grandparents.
I do believe in spending what I've earned and that kids need to understand the concept of working for a living and not base thier business model on me snuffing it.
Armitage.Shanks said:
Not disagreeing chum as my offspring will be OK given that the value in the main house will be a starter. There will probably be a good wedge left as nobody knows when the grim reaper is around the corner plus I've (more than) helped out along the way which hopefully will get paid back with some support in my old age.
My point is my in-laws are leaving their assets to grandkids who they never see and take no interest in their grandparents.
I do believe in spending what I've earned and that kids need to understand the concept of working for a living and not base thier business model on me snuffing it.
Currently many "kids" will be retired themselves by the time their parents snuff it. That might change a bit if people have to work longer in future.My point is my in-laws are leaving their assets to grandkids who they never see and take no interest in their grandparents.
I do believe in spending what I've earned and that kids need to understand the concept of working for a living and not base thier business model on me snuffing it.
I can't help feeling miffed that my FIL has just taken all of his grandkids out of his Will. He never sees some of them but sees a lot of our kids (and their kids too) but feels he has to be "fair".
Sheepshanks said:
Currently many "kids" will be retired themselves by the time their parents snuff it. That might change a bit if people have to work longer in future.
I can't help feeling miffed that my FIL has just taken all of his grandkids out of his Will. He never sees some of them but sees a lot of our kids (and their kids too) but feels he has to be "fair".
Although don't forget that the State retirement age is the point at which the State will start to pay the basic pension. It isn't the point at which most people will be retiring. Most people will be retired by the workplace long before just as they currently are. The market place doesn't employ over 55s and seeks to actively unemploy staff who reach that point. I can't help feeling miffed that my FIL has just taken all of his grandkids out of his Will. He never sees some of them but sees a lot of our kids (and their kids too) but feels he has to be "fair".
Going back 28 years now, my late mother had a stroke and went into a care home for a few months until she was well enough (Just about) to go home and live with my Dad at home, where she died a couple of years later....
He paid around £350 pw for her (A lot of money back then)
The (very nice) lady in the next bed paid £15 pw for EXACTLY the same standard of care, the government made up the difference....because she had no dosh.
Made saving for your old age a bit silly really.
He paid around £350 pw for her (A lot of money back then)
The (very nice) lady in the next bed paid £15 pw for EXACTLY the same standard of care, the government made up the difference....because she had no dosh.
Made saving for your old age a bit silly really.
Sheepshanks said:
DonkeyApple said:
Most people will be retired by the workplace long before just as they currently are.
Do you think so? Even if that's correct, surely typical retirement age has to creep up?TooMany2cvs said:
Wacky Racer said:
Made saving for your old age a bit silly really.
No, not really.Who had the better life before needing care?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff