Mum wants to give us money from house sale

neverdespairgirl

diddlyidi wrote: »

hope that they will not begrudge paying taxes for healthcare for UK residents.

Healthcare? No. But living costs? They might well.

[Deleted User]

why on earth should hard working younger, often struggling, tax payers have to pay for an older person`s needs when there is income available. Get real diddldi, we no longer live in a fantasy world. It won`t be long before those without savings will get workhouse level care. You should be thinking of your mother`s future needs and not yourself

Running_Horse

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

I'm going to be a little controversial here, but try to play Devil's Advocate ...

I tend to agree with you, however also playing devil's advocate, what is the incentive to save and provide for yourself when those who don't get so many rewards for not doing so? I know a couple of specific examples of people who !!!!ed away their money and property only now to get everything given to them in retirement. I also know people who have no intention of starting a pension because they will be just as well off on benefits.

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

We're not talking about healthcare - this is to do with "general care" for the elderly. Those who are not ill, or suffering from a medical condition, but those that just need a housekeeper ... someone to help.

If we extend State funded care to those, then we really are leaving an expensive (tax) legacy to our children.

Problem is....
We "extend" state funded everything to every dropout and dosser, and they don't even have to be British.

You can see why people really think that they might as well get a bit of the action while there is still a bit left.
There needs to be a dramatic overhaul of the benefits system in the UK, it really isn't fair.

seven-day-weekend

Whilst I agree that 'personal' care can not be funded by the State I can understand why people get upset about it, when they see people who have made no provision for the future whatsoever getting exactly the same as, or sometimes more than, they, who are using their lifelong assets to pay.

I'm not for one minute saying the people who have no money should get inferior care. What I AM saying is that people who are self-funding should not be expected to subsidise those who are state-funded, which is what happens at the moment.

The system is not fair, and I think this is what people resent.

Also, don't forget the elderly people going into care now were promised cradle-to-grave free care and they feel this has been reneged on, so you can understand them feeling a bit upset.

GrannyKate

I will keep out of the rights and wrongs here but I think it is important to look at all the worst case scenarios and not rely on your good intentions now. People live to a good age and none of us can be certain that we will outlive our parents - illness and accidents happen as do financial problems and family squabbles. The money once given to children is subject to what happens in their life as well. It may be taken by their creditors or divided amongst their children and grandchildren if they die before the elderly mother and it will no longer be available to top up her care needs as her late husband might have wished.

Mother needs independent legal advice here and family need to consider other options - perhaps sharing some of the proceeds but putting a substantial part away in mother's name to fund future care if needed.

Bogof_Babe

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Also, don't forget the elderly people going into care now were promised cradle-to-grave free care and they feel this has been reneged on, so you can understand them feeling a bit upset.

I was promised my company pension at 60, and my state pension too, both of which have been reneged on. That's life.

I think there should be a distinction between people who have spent their money on themselves being exempt from paying for care, and those who simply wish to pass fortunes on to their children, which I cannot see why the taxpayer should cough up for. This would only be workable if a charge was put on the person's estate, repayable out of whatever assets they leave, before the inheritances are distributed.

For one thing it is socially divisive that some people attain riches purely by being born to the right parents, while other perhaps far more worthy people will never inherit a penny.

Another aspect to remember is that care in old age doesn't necessarily mean residential care. Often a person can retain a measure of independence in their own home with the help of home carers. Self funding means you can select a package that suits your needs best, whereas if you rely on the crumbs that the council can afford you might find it a real struggle, e.g. if they can only pay for a visit once a day while you actually need help both getting up and going to bed.

This is all a bit deep for a Sunday morning isn't it?

poppysarah

If house prices were at low levels then they'd quickly reach the limits allowed by the government. It is only because house prices are so amazingly high that this even becomes an issue.

You don't expect a butler paid for by the state when you're healthy, but nursing care should be free when you need it.

In Spain they have so few old people homes because families look after their elders at home.

margaretclare

diddlyidi wrote: »

I would have thought that the state should fund them.Isn't that what we pay our NI contributions for?

No, it is not.

Remember that the whole NI system was set up many years ago and, while it has been tweaked, twitched and tinkered with many times, it has never been completely overhauled. To fund every elderly person's needs in a care home - largely bed-and-board, what are called 'hotel charges' - would require a huge increase in taxation which no politician would ever be brave enough to advocate. It has been looked at and recognised to be impossible.

What we pay our NI contributions for is: unemployment, sickness and pensions in retirement.

Both myself and my husband both work hard and constantly try to save by being careful /frugal with our money so that we can in turn pass this on to our children/grandchildren to hopefully give them a better life.
Surely this isn't the wrong thing to do.Is it?

But you can't expect to 'pass on to your children' at the expense of your own possible future needs while expecting the taxpayer to pick up on those needs. You pay for yourself first, and what's left goes to the children etc. Isn't that reasonable?

As I keep saying, DH and I are still saving, in retirement, because we just do not know what our future needs may be. The last thing either of us would want is to be shoved into some god-awful hole just because the 'children' had their greedy eyes on what is ours and expected 'the state' to pay. In fact, that isn't the case at all. They're all doing well by their own efforts, God love them, and need nothing from us. Which is as it should be.

We want choice and comfort, the ability to make our own decisions, to pay for help in the home if/when that becomes necessary, and if that is no longer adequate, to have some kind of choice in the matter.

When the NI system was originally set up, we had geriatric hospitals in which many people ended their days. These had grown out of the workhouse infirmaries. The state did provide these!

griffosteve

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mum_of_3
There is a limit on the amnount of cash someone can gift you each year before you have ot pay tax on it, so be careful you don;t fall into that trap.


Just been told this week by my accountant that there is a limit of £3000 per year, on gifted money before you are taxed on it.