Inheritance Advice Required

carefullycautious

Oldernotwiser, my father who died last year was self funding in a nursing home and there were people in there who were as poor as church mice. This home was the best in our area. They had exactly the same level of care whether they paid themselves or were funded by SS. This happens everywhere. And as in all areas there are good homes and not so good

KellyWelly

Martinslovechild wrote: »

Emlou, I'm not here to fire up a debate about whether or not my Father's ethics agree with yours.

I'm quite sure that he would retort that people shouldn't have children unless they can pay for their upbringing entirely themselves, i.e. pay for schooling, pay for hospital fees, no access to child benefits, child tax credit, working families tax credit etc.

Nobody has placed ideas into my Father's head about circumventing fees or taxes - he's 'planning', not 'evading'. He simply wants to ensure that if there are things he can be doing now which will either reduce or eradicate future expenditure/taxes then he's saying that he wants to review and potentially address these now, rather than wait until it's potentially too late.

I bet your dad didn't turn down the Family Allowance when you were a child and I bet he didn't have private health care and put you all through private school either.

Oldernotwiser

carefullycautious wrote: »

Oldernotwiser, my father who died last year was self funding in a nursing home and there were people in there who were as poor as church mice. This home was the best in our area. They had exactly the same level of care whether they paid themselves or were funded by SS. This happens everywhere. And as in all areas there are good homes and not so good

I know that there are cases where people get the same care whether self or publicly funded but this isn't always the case. More importantly, if you're self funding you have choice, so if somewhere goes downhill or no longer suits your needs you can then move to somewhere else. This is far more difficult when your care is paid for out of public funds.

thursdaynext

Well, I can think of two perfectly legitimate options. You might not like either of them...

Either: if your dad gets to a stage where he needs to be looked after - he doesn't have to go into a home, you could look after him. Either in his home or in yours - he could sell his house, move in with you & pay you a 'wage'.

Or: your dad accepts that he's been saving for a rainy day but now the sun's come out... he can sell up and use the money to enjoy himself - travel the world, take up new hobbies etc. Three possible outcomes to this: the money lasts longer than he does, and you still get an inheritance; he suddenly needs residential care and gets a few years in the home of his choice, knowing he had a final fling & with all those memories; or, he runs out of money while fit & well and comes to live with you.

Elsewhere

The Beveridge report, which laid out the principles of social security, stated "It is, first and foremost, a plan of insurance - of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence level, as of right and without means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it."

I assume the OP's father has worked and contributed to National Insurance for many years, and therefore I would interpret the above to mean that he is entitled to a basic level of care, should he need it, without having to pay any extra money. He has already paid.

If he then wishes to pay extra for what he considers a superior standard of care, that is up to him.

Frankly, I consider making people who have been frugal, who have saved their money (and probably ended up paying a heap of extra tax on their savings) pay for care when others get it for free is completely against the principles of the welfare state.

margaretclare

Elsewhere wrote: »

The Beveridge report, which laid out the principles of social security, stated "It is, first and foremost, a plan of insurance - of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence level, as of right and without means test, so that individuals may build freely upon it."

I assume the OP's father has worked and contributed to National Insurance for many years, and therefore I would interpret the above to mean that he is entitled to a basic level of care, should he need it, without having to pay any extra money. He has already paid.

If he then wishes to pay extra for what he considers a superior standard of care, that is up to him.

Frankly, I consider making people who have been frugal, who have saved their money (and probably ended up paying a heap of extra tax on their savings) pay for care when others get it for free is completely against the principles of the welfare state.

When Beveridge wrote his report in 1942, and later when it was enshrined in legislation in 1948, it could never have been envisaged how things would change from then to now.

'Benefits up to subsistence level' - well, that's bare survival. That still exists.

'Individuals may build freely upon it' - given that no one is starving, everyone can 'build upon it' i.e. can pay for extra if they want it and if they're able to do so.

It's worth remembering that any elderly person who needed full-time residential care in that era could have it, but it would be in a 'geriatric hospital', what had formerly been a workhouse infirmary. Basic care - food, cleanliness etc - was certainly there, but I doubt if any of us would want it now.

DH and I reckon we've had every penny-piece worth of value out of the NHS, every penny we ever paid in tax and NI contributions. You could compare it with the education system. It was envisaged that education would be free. I was paid a student grant, but there was no such thing for my grandson, who paid for his degree studies himself.

Things are very, very different now from the 1940s.

Mini_Bear

When my parents get to this stage of life i will build an annexe in my house/garden and look after them. I would NEVER want either of my parents to go in2 a home.
Also if they turned round tomorrow and said they were gna blow everything they had on cruises and sports cars i wud be genuinely happy for them.
inheritance has never factored in my life i live a frugal life and dont expect to need to work past 35.
i would encourage your dad to move to a smaller property and spend what he has on some nice treats for himself. he deserves it!

elljay

Goodness me, all the OP asked for originally was some straightforward factual information. Everyone's turned it into some sort of personal vendetta or opportunity to hold forth about social issues. This happens a lot on here, it can be really upsetting when you never intend half of the things that posters seem to think you're implying.
Anyway -

Mini_Bear wrote: »

When my parents get to this stage of life i will build an annexe in my house/garden and look after them. I would NEVER want either of my parents to go in2 a home.

I would hope that my children would ensure that they asked my opinion of that idea rather than just moved me into an annexe because it's what they want. Personally I will be quite happy to move into a home, the majority do a great job in difficult circumstances. I'd hate to live with my children, much as I adore them and their families, and my daughter is my very best friend. However we live different sorts of lives, have different standards and rules that we live by and it would be awful. I'm far too bossy by half and would end up trying to take over too. We'd be constantly either falling out or biting our tongues to avoid falling out. Terrible.

So please, you can all be my witnesses, find me a nice home when the time comes!

Incidentally OP, my mother at 83 has just downsized her house and passed a nice chunk of her profit to her children. She has to live for 7 years to avoid tax on it but what the hell, it's wonderful for us to be able to enjoy it now, future tax or no future tax. I'm so grateful. She's also having fun with the rest of the money, including new boyfriend!! She also has a 'nursing home fund' that she has put by just in case.

Please people lets be nice. This elderly man is only trying to find out the facts, we don't know what he intends to do with that info once he's got it. Sometimes responses on here are really hurtful when responders assume things that have never entered the original questioner's head.

Liz

margaretclare

elljay wrote: »

I would hope that my children would ensure that they asked my opinion of that idea rather than just moved me into an annexe because it's what they want. Personally I will be quite happy to move into a home, the majority do a great job in difficult circumstances. I'd hate to live with my children, much as I adore them and their families, and my daughter is my very best friend. However we live different sorts of lives, have different standards and rules that we live by and it would be awful. I'm far too bossy by half and would end up trying to take over too. We'd be constantly either falling out or biting our tongues to avoid falling out. Terrible.

So please, you can all be my witnesses, find me a nice home when the time comes!

I agree with all of this! I have heard some horror stories of mum or dad being 'moved in' to create a multi-generational family and how it just did not work, for a variety of reasons. From what I've heard, it can ONLY work if there is a separate front door, separate bathroom and kitchen and everyone respects everyone else's space, recognising that young people will make noise and older people want to be quiet....

Incidentally OP, my mother at 83 has just downsized her house and passed a nice chunk of her profit to her children. She has to live for 7 years to avoid tax on it but what the hell, it's wonderful for us to be able to enjoy it now, future tax or no future tax. I'm so grateful. She's also having fun with the rest of the money, including new boyfriend!! She also has a 'nursing home fund' that she has put by just in case.

Well, DH and I are still saving, and one of the reasons we're still saving is that no one knows just what is around the corner and a little extra money does make things easier, oils the wheels so to speak. Things have happened to us that could never have been foreseen. If DH had died last autumn, as he so nearly did, I would have sold up and moved into sheltered accommodation because I just could not have lived here alone, not in another widowhood, not for all kinds of reasons.

Martinslovechild

elljay wrote: »

Goodness me, all the OP asked for originally was some straightforward factual information. Everyone's turned it into some sort of personal vendetta or opportunity to hold forth about social issues. This happens a lot on here, it can be really upsetting when you never intend half of the things that posters seem to think you're implying.

Please people lets be nice. This elderly man is only trying to find out the facts, we don't know what he intends to do with that info once he's got it. Sometimes responses on here are really hurtful when responders assume things that have never entered the original questioner's head.

Liz

Liz,

Thank You. You're absolutely correct in what you've said. My Father initially raised this subject with me just a few days ago. It's interesting that a few people here have percieved (or jumped to conclusions) that by my asking such a question, I am simply after every penny I can get my hands on and that I am attempting to ensure that "my" future inheritance is maximised. Emlou - you've never asked whether I'm a moneygrabber, but you certainly implied it in your posts. Anybody who knows me will tell you that this is as far away from the truth as you could possibly get.

In fact, the truth of the matter is that I've said to my Father many times that he should aim to enjoy his years in retirement, to the point where I've told him not to worry about my Brother or myself in terms of financial inheritance or otherwise. I lost my Mum to cancer at the age of 60; I'm quite sure that my Father would like to be going around the world right now on a cruise with my Mum, but sadly that wasn't to be.

Both my Father and my Mum worked and paid taxes their whole lives. In the past five years, my Dad has witnessed the death of his own Mother, his Father-In-Law and his wife. Right now he still has his health, but by nature, he is a planner and is thinking ahead, hence his questions which I've relayed earlier. He has no issue with paying for any future care, but I believe that he takes issue with individuals who've effectively emptied their piggy banks and are then entitled to a level of care the same as the one for which he is sent a bill.

Up until Inheritance laws were amended a couple of years ago, people would routinely have Discretionary Will Trusts drawn up to allow the use of their spouse's nil-band pot, effectively saving £120,000 in tax on the death of the second individual in a marriage. They didn't draw up Discretionary Will Trusts because they were attempting to evade tax, but were advised by will-makers and solicitors to do so as this was a law-abiding way of tax-planning so as to reduce or completely eradicate future inheritance taxes. As the law was changed by Alastair Darling a couple of years ago to make this the normal state-of-play, people who spent money on Will Trusts were in fact vindicated.

As my Father has paid taxes his whole life, he simply wants to ensure that the one thing he still owns, his property, is able to help my Brother & I. As I've said before, this is completely his own decision. I've said already that I want him to enjoy his retirement and if that means him selling up and travelling around the world until the day he dies, so be it. If he spent every penny, it truly would make me happy because at least he'll have gone knowing that he had a fabulous time. Sadly, without my Mum around, I can't see him heading off into the Sunset any time soon, but there we are.

I'm sure some people will be around soon to 'pick on the bones'. Thank You to everybody else for your suggestions and advice. I'll collate it and go through it with him when I see him on Fathers' Day.