Care home - protecting assets

[philv]

The initial message was deleted from this topic on 30 March 2017 at 23:42

[DoubleSix]

Let us assume for a moment that there was a way doing what you're asking.

Have you considered the moral implications of this hypothetical action?

[otherman]

Perhaps your parents would rather use their savings to be well looked after, rather than get a bargain basement state version.

[Armitage.Shanks]

I thought that a house as assets is not used where the spouse still lives in it and the other goes into a home?

If your mother dies then I presume half of it gets passed on as per the will. The other half (at present) goes to your father and will then fund the cost of care?

If the house was exclusively in your mother's name I presume on her death she could bequeath it in a will to whoever she wanted and factor your father out. However if this is done for the intention of evading care costs then it's illegal. Plus everyone else then has to stump up the money through increased social care charges on council tax.

[thebraketester]

I think there is a way of putting it in a trust for you. My parents have done similar. It protects the asset from being used to play for care homes (I think)

[TFP]

philv said:

My father's share of the house will fund 3 years of base care home.
Which he would be in if he had no house etc anyway.

Moral?
50 years of saving etc for a house and paying his way.
3 years in an average care home and it's gone.
3 years that is possibly in a room next to someone who had nothing and tnerefore contributed nothing.
Not a simple moral argument either way.

I'm asking if tnere is a prudent way of planning ahead.

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your Father. It's a truly awful thing.

However...

So everyone else pays more so you get an Inheritance ? Your parents get to see out their days in a low rent craphole so that you can get your money ?

How benevolent of you.

Please post your address so I can send you my tax bill.

Any deprivation of assets is going to look pretty cynical. Think on.

[TFP]

philv said:

TFP said:

I'm genuinely sorry to hear about your Father. It's a truly awful thing.

However...

So everyone else pays more so you get an Inheritance ? Your parents get to see out their days in a low rent craphole so that you can get your money ?

How benevolent of you.

Please post your address so I can send you my tax bill.

Any deprivation of assets is going to look pretty cynical. Think on.

You obviously did not read what i wrote above.
It makes absolutely no difference to the care home either would be in.
Nor did you read about whose behalf i am asking.

I have plainly asked what is normal , what do peop,e do in this situation.
Or is tax planning, inheritance planning, etc, etc a no no aswell.
Maybe 3/4 of the country should send you their addresses?
F'ing miserable cretin.

Edited by philv on Monday 20th March 22:35

I'm sorry you're so thick.

Your Father has care needs. You want to engage in asset deprivation post this diagnosis in order to maximise your inheritance.

You don't want your inheritance used on his care.

[ellroy]

thebraketester said:

I think there is a way of putting it in a trust for you. My parents have done similar. It protects the asset from being used to play for care homes (I think)

Trusts work in regard to IHT. They do not typically work if the point is asset protection from LTC costs.

The local authority can go to court and if there's no reason for the trust, other than 'hiding' the asset it can be ignored when assessing the costs liable.

It's getting very hard to protect assets against these costs.

[egor110]

thebraketester said:

I think there is a way of putting it in a trust for you. My parents have done similar. It protects the asset from being used to play for care homes (I think)

y
So how exactly do they pay for there care home costs ?

I under stand people don't want to use there homes to pay but the alternative is a cheaper council run home and i'd say visit one then come back here and say if you'd still put your parents in one to save your inheritance.

[egor110]

philv said:

My father's share of the house will fund 3 years of base care home.
Which he would be in if he had no house etc anyway.

Moral?
50 years of saving etc for a house and paying his way.
3 years in an average care home and it's gone.
3 years that is possibly in a room next to someone who had nothing and tnerefore contributed nothing.
Not a simple moral argument either way.

I'm asking if tnere is a prudent way of planning ahead.

A decent dementia care home is going to be from £800 a week , somebody with no assets is not going to be in the this standard of home.

If your mother dies before your father they don't force him out of his house to pay her costs , when he dies the care home then get paid from the sale of the house .

[NRS]

philv said:

TFP said:

I'm sorry you're so thick.

Your Father has care needs. You want to engage in asset deprivation post this diagnosis in order to maximise your inheritance.

You don't want your inheritance used on his care.

I'm sorry you are so obnoxious.
Pistonheads can be a wonderful place to ask advice.
But like anywhere else, there are always those offensive, unpleasant individuals.

Now, you plainly have nothing of interest to post here, so please don''t.

I can understand your question, but when you are basically asking how can other people pay your family's costs so you/ the inheritance doesn't get affected then it's not surprising some people will be unhappy. Are a few comments on an internet forum more unpleasant than trying to get people pay more tax for your family? Both sides are perfectly valid, but only one results in costs for other people.

[CountZero23]

NRS said:

I can understand your question, but when you are basically asking how can other people pay your family's costs so you/ the inheritance doesn't get affected then it's not surprising some people will be unhappy. Are a few comments on an internet forum more unpleasant than trying to get people pay more tax for your family? Both sides are perfectly valid, but only one results in costs for other people.

+1

[Sheepshanks]

egor110 said:

...the alternative is a cheaper council run home...

There's very few of those left now. They generally place people in private care homes, but pay a lower rate.

My Mum was in one, of 25 people only 3 (inc her) were self-funding. She thought it was right to pay - until she realised how few people did. It also drove her mad that she didn't get a better standard of attention than those who'd dispersed their assets well in advance.

Edited by Sheepshanks on Monday 20th March 23:43

[thebraketester]

egor110 said:

thebraketester said:

I think there is a way of putting it in a trust for you. My parents have done similar. It protects the asset from being used to play for care homes (I think)

y
So how exactly do they pay for there care home costs ?

I under stand people don't want to use there homes to pay but the alternative is a cheaper council run home and i'd say visit one then come back here and say if you'd still put your parents in one to save your inheritance.

Good point....

[NRS]

philv said:

NRS said:

I can understand your question, but when you are basically asking how can other people pay your family's costs so you/ the inheritance doesn't get affected then it's not surprising some people will be unhappy. Are a few comments on an internet forum more unpleasant than trying to get people pay more tax for your family? Both sides are perfectly valid, but only one results in costs for other people.

But nheritance tax planning means less tax, means higher taxes.
And tne same logic could be applied to much financial planning.
I was merely asking what is tne accepted norm.
Not how to defraud tne state.
I didn't expect an offensive reply.

I can understand that, but lots of people would regard any kind of tax planning as "wrong" - hence the stories you see in the media, where often tax avoidance and evasion are equated to being as bad as each other morally, even if legally they are very different. To me if I was asking this type of question I'd be open to people questioning it, as it's perfectly fair for someone to question why they should pay more for someone else to get the benefit (which is in the end what happens with any type of tax reduction method as you rightly point out).

[oyster]

otherman said:

Perhaps your parents would rather use their savings to be well looked after, rather than get a bargain basement state version.

I've seen this mentioned a few times and having visited a few elderly relatives over the years, all of them in state-funded homes, I couldn't see anything to be concerned about. The rooms, food, care and facilities seemed to be what I expected.

Sure the TV was a little small perhaps.

What do you mean by 'well looked after'? And would a very old person even notice it? (not sure I will when I'm that age).

[oyster]

CountZero23 said:

NRS said:

I can understand your question, but when you are basically asking how can other people pay your family's costs so you/ the inheritance doesn't get affected then it's not surprising some people will be unhappy. Are a few comments on an internet forum more unpleasant than trying to get people pay more tax for your family? Both sides are perfectly valid, but only one results in costs for other people.

+1

Ridiculous.

Legal planning for either tax or benefit purposes is just sensible family financial planning.

If you can't do it for some reason then you have no right to berate others for doing so. If it's illegal then it's a different argument and I'd expect people to be honest and not do it, even if enforecement doesn't happen.

But if it's legal, then how can their be a moral hazard?

[AyBee]

philv said:

50 years of saving etc for a house and paying his way.
3 years in an average care home and it's gone.
3 years that is possibly in a room next to someone who had nothing and tnerefore contributed nothing.
Not a simple moral argument either way.

I'm asking if tnere is a prudent way of planning ahead.

He can't take it with him, so the only benefit of anything being left is for you, whether or not they are the ones asking. So basically you want all of us to pay for his care so that you can benefit...

[benjijames28]

fk what's morally right, you protect your family.

My grandad worked hard his whole life, paid off his mortgage and saved some money up, paid into a private pension. He's been retired ten years, his savings are gone, he's scrimping by on a pension much lower than what he was promised when paying in.

His brother has worked his whole life for the council, refusing to buy his council house as it's cheaper to let council maintain it etc..., Spent all his own money on holidays, fags and booze.

My grandad will have his house taken to pay for a care home if required, his brother who squandered all his money, didn't pay into anything... Will get the same care home treatment paid for by the state.

If my grandad had a legal way of protecting his assets to pass onto his kids then why shouldn't he?

The real wealthy people didn't get where they are by playing fair. Get off your high horses.

[Sheepshanks]

benjijames28 said:

My grandad will have his house taken to pay for a care home if required, his brother who squandered all his money, didn't pay into anything... Will get the same care home treatment paid for by the state.

I don't know what the answer is, but there is something faintly ridiculous about the current situation.

My mother hosed £200K into a care home. We were staggered by how much she had, she really ought to have spent it it on her and Dad but she squirrelled it all away.