Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.

Mum's home, not to give it to equity release or a care home.

Author
Discussion

JB!

5,173 posts

121 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
Is a trust an option?

Isaac Hunt

9,755 posts

152 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
My OH and I have no children. We were discussing selling up the house when we retire, booking ourselves on a round the world cruise until we get down to the last £20k and then coming home.

They usually have a ship's doctor on board and there is enough in our house to provide about 10 years cruising. It seems to be a lot cheaper than a care home.

wisbech

872 posts

62 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
So,in effect,you are suggesting that the children of 'baby boomers'(such as I)are not allowed to inherit the wealth that our parents(late,in my instance)accumilated through a lifetime of hard work?

Further,you seem to suggest that I should have funded care home fees for my late father?

I assume that you are a 'snowflake'?


From my point of view,I'm tempted to sell up and rent,or take equity release to the maximum so that my kids can be helped at the time that they most need help,secure in the knowledge that 'the state' will pick up the tab when I'm blessed with dementia.

Do you actually know a person with dementia?
It's horrible to watch,helpless,whilst a loved and respected parent becomes a shambling wreck......
My father - I wrote about it elsewhere on this site. And I am not sure that getting more money on his death would have lessened the sorrow

Why should we inherit, rather than their money be used to look after them properly?

If anything I wish they had spent more. All the money that they spent on making my mothers burden less as his main carer was great value for money.

It is just bad luck if they need to spend their money on care, rather than other things/ leave it to the kids. If it doesn’t happen, great, you get a bonus. If it does, that’s life. Note that dementia isn’t certain.

My parents gave me a good start in life, but once I had left college (they scrupulously gave me the ‘grant’ money to the penny) it was understood we should be on our own.




Edited by wisbech on Monday 13th May 16:26

plasticpig

11,066 posts

166 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
Do you actually know a person with dementia?
It's horrible to watch,helpless,whilst a loved and respected parent becomes a shambling wreck......
Visiting a care home with a wing full of dementia sufferers is a very persuasive argument for assisted suicide. I would rather top myself than potentially living like that for several years.




markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
SpeckledJim said:
markcoznottz said:
troika said:
This is the problem with elderly care. Everyone wants it and wants it to be of the best quality, but wants someone else to pay for it.
Just an honest debate would do, under no circumstances should it be means tested.
Today's retirees with homes worth fortunes didn't earn the majority of that money, and haven't paid tax on it. It dropped into their laps as a result of 30 years of crazy house price growth.

The parents of this generation paid for their education, they've been the lucky recipients of peace and prosperity, so are they really expecting their children to pay for their retirements?

The money is almost all theirs, the problem is almost all theirs. They, of all of us, are the best-placed to pay for what they need.

Unless we're really saying that middle-aged kids who couldn't even nearly afford to buy the house they grew up in are going to pay for their parents' care through their mid-life taxation, whilst the large family house just sits untouchable and irrelevant to the whole situation?
It's politics of envy, pure and simple. House prices have nothing at all to do with long term care. The only people rubbing thier hands together are those that secretly love an asset grab. 'Dropped into thier lap' yea ok mate. What you mean is they probably struggled to pay a mortgage for years, spent additional time and £££ on the property, and are really the unsung middle England heroes, who keep property in good condition to pass on to the next generation. A formidable task given the ageing housing uk stock.
Advertisement

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
troika said:
This is the problem with elderly care. Everyone wants it and wants it to be of the best quality, but wants someone else to pay for it.
Yet those that are so affronted about paying for their own care by selling their house also seem to be those that are against higher taxation.

markcoznottz said:
It's politics of envy, pure and simple. House prices have nothing at all to do with long term care. The only people rubbing thier hands together are those that secretly love an asset grab. 'Dropped into thier lap' yea ok mate. What you mean is they probably struggled to pay a mortgage for years, spent additional time and £££ on the property, and are really the unsung middle England heroes, who keep property in good condition to pass on to the next generation. A formidable task given the ageing housing uk stock.
"Unsung middle England heroes" has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Yes, so heroic buying a house on a 100% mortgage and watching its value double or triple for a massive unearned windfall.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
daimlerv8 said:
So,in effect,you are suggesting that the children of 'baby boomers'(such as I)are not allowed to inherit the wealth that our parents(late,in my instance)accumilated through a lifetime of hard work?

Further,you seem to suggest that I should have funded care home fees for my late father?

I assume that you are a 'snowflake'?


From my point of view,I'm tempted to sell up and rent,or take equity release to the maximum so that my kids can be helped at the time that they most need help,secure in the knowledge that 'the state' will pick up the tab when I'm blessed with dementia.

Do you actually know a person with dementia?
It's horrible to watch,helpless,whilst a loved and respected parent becomes a shambling wreck......
I am very happy to suggest that children of 'baby boomers' are not allowed to inherit unearned wealth from their parents. I am not sure wealth 'earned' by crazy house price growth is really 'a lifetime of hard work'.

I did watch a grandparent deteriorate with dementia and then pass away in a care home. Her house was sold to pay for her care, though when she died there was still quite a bit of cash left. It went into the pockets of her children who didn't really need it, buying my parents a brand new Mazda MX-5.

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
troika said:
This is the problem with elderly care. Everyone wants it and wants it to be of the best quality, but wants someone else to pay for it.
Yet those that are so affronted about paying for their own care by selling their house also seem to be those that are against higher taxation.

markcoznottz said:
It's politics of envy, pure and simple. House prices have nothing at all to do with long term care. The only people rubbing thier hands together are those that secretly love an asset grab. 'Dropped into thier lap' yea ok mate. What you mean is they probably struggled to pay a mortgage for years, spent additional time and £££ on the property, and are really the unsung middle England heroes, who keep property in good condition to pass on to the next generation. A formidable task given the ageing housing uk stock.
"Unsung middle England heroes" has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever heard. Yes, so heroic buying a house on a 100% mortgage and watching its value double or triple for a massive unearned windfall.
How many couples bought houses on 100% mortgages back in the day? In the 70's/80s you needed a hefty deposit as well. Most people stayed at home and saved it remember that? Long term planning, and sound money. It took a long time for prices to triple, the market early 90's was very poor, let's not forget all those with negative equity as well. Maybe you don't mind those people comrade. You are bitter because it's a chunk of equity you feel should be redistributed to help you sleep at night.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
How many couples bought houses on 100% mortgages back in the day? In the 70's/80s you needed a hefty deposit as well. Most people stayed at home and saved it remember that? Long term planning, and sound money. It took a long time for prices to triple, the market early 90's was very poor, let's not forget all those with negative equity as well. Maybe you don't mind those people comrade. You are bitter because it's a chunk of equity you feel should be redistributed to help you sleep at night.
Haha, you're just trying to game the system to selfishly protect your inheritance, nothing to do with protecting your mum's house for her sake.

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
daimlerv8 said:
So,in effect,you are suggesting that the children of 'baby boomers'(such as I)are not allowed to inherit the wealth that our parents(late,in my instance)accumilated through a lifetime of hard work?

Further,you seem to suggest that I should have funded care home fees for my late father?

I assume that you are a 'snowflake'?


From my point of view,I'm tempted to sell up and rent,or take equity release to the maximum so that my kids can be helped at the time that they most need help,secure in the knowledge that 'the state' will pick up the tab when I'm blessed with dementia.

Do you actually know a person with dementia?
It's horrible to watch,helpless,whilst a loved and respected parent becomes a shambling wreck......
I am very happy to suggest that children of 'baby boomers' are not allowed to inherit unearned wealth from their parents. I am not sure wealth 'earned' by crazy house price growth is really 'a lifetime of hard work'.

I did watch a grandparent deteriorate with dementia and then pass away in a care home. Her house was sold to pay for her care, though when she died there was still quite a bit of cash left. It went into the pockets of her children who didn't really need it, buying my parents a brand new Mazda MX-5.
You are a nasty little commie no doubt about it. Presumably whatever was left went to her next of kin by her choice after any tax was paid. How do you know they 'didn't need it' , are you thier accountant? What you really mean is you either don't like the idea of inheritance per se, or you didn't like the benefactors in question. Or, more likely you are experiencing jealousy, and wish to exact your revenge on the world by denying other people what is legally theirs. Just out of interest what do you think should have happened to the balance left after probate etc? (I.e. The lump sum) I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
You are a nasty little commie no doubt about it. Presumably whatever was left went to her next of kin by her choice after any tax was paid. How do you know they 'didn't need it' , are you thier accountant? What you really mean is you either don't like the idea of inheritance per se, or you didn't like the benefactors in question. Or, more likely you are experiencing jealousy, and wish to exact your revenge on the world by denying other people what is legally theirs. Just out of interest what do you think should have happened to the balance left after probate etc? (I.e. The lump sum) I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
Easy with the slurs, pal. I'm far from a communist. Anyway, you're the one that suggests that the State should pay for social care, sounds pretty 'commie' to me. Riddle me this: are you in favour of large tax increases to pay for care for the elderly? I presume not. How do you think it should therefore be funded? I suspect you don't have an answer.

Oh, and I am their son, I know they don't need it, evidenced by the fact they went out and spent a decent chunk of it on a brand new MX-5, when they already had an MX-5 on the driveway.

You say I want to deny "what is legally theirs" yet that is literally what the point of this thread, how to avoid paying what they legally should. Laughable logic, have you even started to think this through?

I am not jealous, inheritance simply reinforces wealth inequality, and is sensibly opposed by both people on the left who want redistribution of wealth and on the right as it does not incentivise capitalist behaviors.

I think if there is anything left it should be taxed accordingly and then left to the benefactor. You would here no complaints from me if inheritance tax rates were chucked right up. So what if incentivises people to spend their cash before they die or get dementia, at least that benefits the economy through spending rather than amassing wealth in the hands of the few.

DonkeyApple

33,221 posts

110 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
I think SpeckledJim makes an extremely valid point and some people are choosing to jump at him a bit too much.

We do have the situation where it has become very clear that the oldest generation did not pay enough tax in their working life to cover their cost as a result of increased longevity and fantastic advances in the NHS. It’s not their fault it is just how it is and as a nation we must all deal with this.

Secondly, we have had a sustained and deliberate asset inflation due to deliberate deregulation of lending that has meant that many people are sitting in enormous capital uplifts that they never expected, never earned and have never paid tax on. Again this is not anyone’s particular fault but it is a reality.

Should we expect to inherit this wealth? No. It’s nice but we have no particular right to it.

Should all of this property wealth be used to pay for someone’s personal needs or should we as a society look for a middle ground where maybe just the last 20 years of inflation is liable? Personally, I feel that the latter would be more fair. However, it is also unfair as a society to turn to an accidental millionaire, for example and say that the less well off should pay for their personal care needs when they have the wealth and means to pay for themselves. Personally, I think people should be expected to pay their own way and the State being a bastion of last resort. That said, I also think they should bring back hanging for care home owners and employees who don’t pay sufficient respect to their wards.

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
markcoznottz said:
You are a nasty little commie no doubt about it. Presumably whatever was left went to her next of kin by her choice after any tax was paid. How do you know they 'didn't need it' , are you thier accountant? What you really mean is you either don't like the idea of inheritance per se, or you didn't like the benefactors in question. Or, more likely you are experiencing jealousy, and wish to exact your revenge on the world by denying other people what is legally theirs. Just out of interest what do you think should have happened to the balance left after probate etc? (I.e. The lump sum) I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
Easy with the slurs, pal. I'm far from a communist. Anyway, you're the one that suggests that the State should pay for social care, sounds pretty 'commie' to me. Riddle me this: are you in favour of large tax increases to pay for care for the elderly? I presume not. How do you think it should therefore be funded? I suspect you don't have an answer.

Oh, and I am their son, I know they don't need it, evidenced by the fact they went out and spent a decent chunk of it on a brand new MX-5, when they already had an MX-5 on the driveway.

You say I want to deny "what is legally theirs" yet that is literally what the point of this thread, how to avoid paying what they legally should. Laughable logic, have you even started to think this through?

I am not jealous, inheritance simply reinforces wealth inequality, and is sensibly opposed by both people on the left who want redistribution of wealth and on the right as it does not incentivise capitalist behaviors.

I think if there is anything left it should be taxed accordingly and then left to the benefactor. You would here no complaints from me if inheritance tax rates were chucked right up. So what if incentivises people to spend their cash before they die or get dementia, at least that benefits the economy through spending rather than amassing wealth in the hands of the few.
You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about your parents car purchase, that my friend is old fashioned schoolyard jealousy, otherwise why on earth would you question someone's perfectly legal free will purchase. Im suprised they don't come on here and tell you where to go. No doubt they paid vat @ 20% etc , dealership paid corporation tax etc, keeps people in a job. In your family's case it sounds like the care home fees, IHT, and associated costs were settled and her kids received the balance. It was 'taxed accordingly', but you obviously aren't happy, so put a % on the tax that should have been paid on the lump sum.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about your parents car purchase, that my friend is old fashioned schoolyard jealousy, otherwise why on earth would you question someone's perfectly legal free will purchase. Im suprised they don't come on here and tell you where to go. No doubt they paid vat @ 20% etc , dealership paid corporation tax etc, keeps people in a job. In your family's case it sounds like the care home fees, IHT, and associated costs were settled and her kids received the balance. It was 'taxed accordingly', but you obviously aren't happy, so put a % on the tax that should have been paid on the lump sum.
What a stretch. I have no jealousy whatsoever, I am happy for them. Note - they didn't try a selfish dodge to put the house in their name to avoid my gran paying for her own care.

You avoided the question: if you don't think people should pay for their own care, you presumably support large income tax increases to cover the costs?

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
markcoznottz said:
You obviously have a bee in your bonnet about your parents car purchase, that my friend is old fashioned schoolyard jealousy, otherwise why on earth would you question someone's perfectly legal free will purchase. Im suprised they don't come on here and tell you where to go. No doubt they paid vat @ 20% etc , dealership paid corporation tax etc, keeps people in a job. In your family's case it sounds like the care home fees, IHT, and associated costs were settled and her kids received the balance. It was 'taxed accordingly', but you obviously aren't happy, so put a % on the tax that should have been paid on the lump sum.
What a stretch. I have no jealousy whatsoever, I am happy for them. Note - they didn't try a selfish dodge to put the house in their name to avoid my gran paying for her own care.

You avoided the question: if you don't think people should pay for their own care, you presumably support large income tax increases to cover the costs?
Your disdain is completely evident to all reading this thread, your use of language gives it away. You said the money 'dissapeared into thier pockets', and that they didn't 'need' it. I don't think someone's bank balance is weighted according to your opinion of their need. Absolutely bizarre. You obviously aren't happy for some reason, like I said it's thier money to spend as they see fit, that's how the economy works, at least they spent it on a big ticket item that's good for society as a whole, very generous. By all means let's discuss care funding but speaking for other people's money is left wing student nonsense and most people grow out of it by thier early 20's. I think the lump sum idea discussed few years back is the only way forward, to keep everyone happy. I can't see an alternative tbh. I notice you didn't put a figure on what % tax your parents should have paid on thier windfall.

Integroo

4,390 posts

26 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
markcoznottz said:
Your disdain is completely evident to all reading this thread, your use of language gives it away. You said the money 'dissapeared into thier pockets', and that they didn't 'need' it. I don't think someone's bank balance is weighted according to your opinion of their need. Absolutely bizarre. You obviously aren't happy for some reason, like I said it's thier money to spend as they see fit, that's how the economy works, at least they spent it on a big ticket item that's good for society as a whole, very generous. By all means let's discuss care funding but speaking for other people's money is left wing student nonsense and most people grow out of it by thier early 20's. I think the lump sum idea discussed few years back is the only way forward, to keep everyone happy. I can't see an alternative tbh. I notice you didn't put a figure on what % tax your parents should have paid on thier windfall.
You are quite frankly now gibbering like an imbecile, please try to articulate your thoughts.

I have disdain towards people gaming the system to protect their unearned inheritance, yes. I don't have disdain towards my parents buying a car with their inheritance (that they received within the rules of the game as they stand without trying to game the system); the point of that anecdote was to show that many (perhaps most) who inherit don't need the cash but rather want the cash, and even if they did 'need' it then quite frankly they don't have a right to it, it isn't something they earned and deserve.

It isn't 'left wing student nonsense' to suggest people pay for their own care when they have the means to do so and we have a massive problem with an underfunded care system.

Please explain what you mean by the 'lump sum' idea, as I am not familiar with it. The facts remain that care is expensive and more people need it now than ever before. It needs to be paid for. If you don't think people should pay for their own, then you logically support large increases in taxation to cover the cost. I suspect you don't though, you just want more money in your pocket without thinking through the consequences.

Sheepshanks

16,996 posts

60 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
av185 said:
Evolved said:
Mr-B said:
Whatever happens if local authority care is needed they will go through your mother's financial details with a fine tooth comb and look very carefully at what they deem "self deprivation" of assets, giving them away basically. If they deem self deprivation has taken place she will have to fund herself.
I think they go back 7 years, if she doesn’t require any care in that time, it shouldn’t be an issue.
Few local authorities will bother going through her details 'with a fine tooth comb'. They are not, and never have been, forensic accountants lol.

This is largely an internet myth btw.
As long as the house was given away when there was no suggestion its owner might go into care then any action the council might take should fail - in theory there's no limit to how far back they can go, but I've seen it stated that it can be as little as 6 months.

The snag is that some councils are much more aggressive at pursuing this than others. Some years ago my mum was in a care home in Liverpool and was dismayed to find only her and one other resident were paying for their own care - many others who had owned property had given it away. However fairly recently Liverpool,City Council had someone jailed when they found out he'd dished out the compo his late father got rather than using it to fund his Mum's dementia care.

Caddyshack

1,198 posts

147 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
JB! said:
Is a trust an option?
Yes.

Read up (all posters on this thread) on the crag report. Age concern proved that it is not possible to find a willing buyer for half a house / not a whole house. Therefore is a % is conveyed to a trust then the effective value for means testing is nil.

Mum moves % to a family trust therefore does not own a whole house.

You need to observe rules of deprivation, an early poster said it was not 7 yrs and was unlimited but the truth is that it Is only 5 yrs...after that there is no appetite and normally much less than this (although open to review).

It is best done as tenants in common and first death leave % to family trust so that the survivor commits no deprivation of assets therefore no 5 yr rule. But it can be done by mum and anything is better than nothing but 5 yrs would be best.

Rules of deprivation are first 6 months normally assumed guilty, 6 to 12 months assumed innocent, anything longer reduces appetite and 5 yrs+ you are more in to insolvency law.

markcoznottz

4,944 posts

165 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
Integroo said:
markcoznottz said:
Your disdain is completely evident to all reading this thread, your use of language gives it away. You said the money 'dissapeared into thier pockets', and that they didn't 'need' it. I don't think someone's bank balance is weighted according to your opinion of their need. Absolutely bizarre. You obviously aren't happy for some reason, like I said it's thier money to spend as they see fit, that's how the economy works, at least they spent it on a big ticket item that's good for society as a whole, very generous. By all means let's discuss care funding but speaking for other people's money is left wing student nonsense and most people grow out of it by thier early 20's. I think the lump sum idea discussed few years back is the only way forward, to keep everyone happy. I can't see an alternative tbh. I notice you didn't put a figure on what % tax your parents should have paid on thier windfall.
You are quite frankly now gibbering like an imbecile, please try to articulate your thoughts.

I have disdain towards people gaming the system to protect their unearned inheritance, yes. I don't have disdain towards my parents buying a car with their inheritance (that they received within the rules of the game as they stand without trying to game the system); the point of that anecdote was to show that many (perhaps most) who inherit don't need the cash but rather want the cash, and even if they did 'need' it then quite frankly they don't have a right to it, it isn't something they earned and deserve.

It isn't 'left wing student nonsense' to suggest people pay for their own care when they have the means to do so and we have a massive problem with an underfunded care system.

Please explain what you mean by the 'lump sum' idea, as I am not familiar with it. The facts remain that care is expensive and more people need it now than ever before. It needs to be paid for. If you don't think people should pay for their own, then you logically support large increases in taxation to cover the cost. I suspect you don't though, you just want more money in your pocket without thinking through the consequences.
You are an unreformed marxist clown- so people don't deserve to inherit anything from thier own family as it isn't something they 'earned or deserve'. What people do with thier estate within the confines of the law is not your business, you certainly don't get to decide for them. My council tax will go up every year I can't find the figures but a huge proportion of council spend is adult care, but I suspect it will never be enough. Integroo do you have a mortgage or do you rent. Have you any next of kin.

Countdown

22,978 posts

137 months

Monday 13th May
quotequote all
troika said:
This is the problem with elderly care. Everyone wants it and wants it to be of the best quality, but wants someone else to pay for it.
..and then complain about taxes going up.....
"