how can you avoid house u own paying for nursing home fees

bumpoowee

marklv wrote: »

Spoiled brats? Most people who inherit are already in their 50s or 60s. Why are you so opposed to people inheriting? Is it some kind of class envy thing? Middle class people have passed wealth from generation to generation since the times of the Romans, why should this be wrong?

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I stand to inherit £100k+ in theory so no this is not envy, I am just better at looking at things objectively without letting my personal circumstances sway my feelings than most people.

I don't think it is wrong to pass on your wealth per se, although I am not a big fan the system, I have witnessed disgusting behaviour by some people who I had thought were decent when their parents died as soon they could sniff money, and even before the death of elderly people I have noticed nauseating brown-nosing behaviour by relatives for no other reason than to try to get a wad of cash. I can't see how it is fair that people inherit huge amounts of money for no other reason than an accident of birth.

While I'm not suggesting inheritance be banned, I don't believe anyone can morally argue they have a right to an inheritance much less expect taxpayers to fund their parents care rather than the parents themselves, just so that they still have an inheritance to pass on.

marklv

bumpoowee wrote: »

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I stand to inherit £100k+ in theory so no this is not envy, I am just better at looking at things objectively without letting my personal circumstances sway my feelings than most people.

I don't think it is wrong to pass on your wealth per se, although I am not a big fan the system, I have witnessed disgusting behaviour by some people who I had thought were decent when their parents died as soon they could sniff money, and even before the death of elderly people I have noticed nauseating brown-nosing behaviour by relatives for no other reason than to try to get a wad of cash. I can't see how it is fair that people inherit huge amounts of money for no other reason than an accident of birth.

While I'm not suggesting inheritance be banned, I don't believe anyone can morally argue they have a right to an inheritance much less expect taxpayers to fund their parents care rather than the parents themselves, just so that they still have an inheritance to pass on.

This is an argument that could go on and on in circles. Each to his own.

EdInvestor

marklv wrote: »

Middle class people have passed wealth from generation to generation since the times of the Romans, why should this be wrong?

Most middle class people will self fund any needed care either by buying it in or via products like immediate needs annuities. They will not attempt to get the taxpayer to fork out while leaving assets to heirs.


It is the families who have only just been able to acquire an asset (the home) in this generation for the first time who really feel the pain.No sooner do they acquire something than it is snatched back -and to add insult to injury the neighbour who did not bother to struggle with the mortgage to build wealth for the family, gets the care for free.

It's not an equitable arrangment.

Gracchus_Babeuf

EdInvestor wrote: »

Most middle class people will self fund any needed care either by buying it in or via products like immediate needs annuities. They will not attempt to get the taxpayer to fork out while leaving assets to heirs.


It is the families who have only just been able to acquire an asset (the home) in this generation for the first time who really feel the pain. No sooner do they acquire something than it is snatched back -and to add insult to injury the neighbour who did not bother to struggle with the mortgage to build wealth for the family, gets the care for free.

It's not an equitable arrangment.

With nursing home fees averaging £1,000 a week you would need one heck of a money pot to generate a sufficient annuity. Not sure what you would define as 'most middle class people' - sounds to me like you need to be landed gentry to afford what you suggest!

Best to use a trust to protect your house, and then you can always rent it out and use the proceeds to top up the payment that the local authority will make for your care. The solutions are there, and if people don't use them then they are frankly stupid.

Fishingtime

I actually agree with the OP
Why bother struggling all your life to pay off a motgage and bring up children,just to have to sell it when it is time to go into a home.
My MIL has never worked in her life and always lived in a council house,and now she has been told she needs to go into a home and it will all be paid for

Gracchus_Babeuf

bumpoowee wrote: »

As I mentioned in one of my previous posts I stand to inherit £100k+ in theory so no this is not envy, I am just better at looking at things objectively without letting my personal circumstances sway my feelings than most people.

I don't think it is wrong to pass on your wealth per se, although I am not a big fan the system, I have witnessed disgusting behaviour by some people who I had thought were decent when their parents died as soon they could sniff money, and even before the death of elderly people I have noticed nauseating brown-nosing behaviour by relatives for no other reason than to try to get a wad of cash. I can't see how it is fair that people inherit huge amounts of money for no other reason than an accident of birth.

While I'm not suggesting inheritance be banned, I don't believe anyone can morally argue they have a right to an inheritance much less expect taxpayers to fund their parents care rather than the parents themselves, just so that they still have an inheritance to pass on.

Well, conversely I know of some thoroughly unpleasant people who arbitrarily disinherited their children once they remarried after the former partner died. Is this right? And in one family, the arch-bigoted traditionalist Catholic parents disinherited their daughter when she decided to marry a non-Catholic. Do you also approve of this?
And an accident of birth is no worse than those who win £100 million on Euromillions!

mildred1978

2 year old thread, people!!!

Gracchus_Babeuf

bumpoowee wrote: »

I do, I know several people who work in care homes. So is your suggestion that because care is expensive, people shouldn't have to pay or even contribute to the cost it, and the kids get to aquire all their parents assets?

Besides according to the figures people have given the average life expectancy in a care home is 2 years, it costs £600 a week which comes to a total of £62k (for 2 people). Still enough left over for the spoiled brats to get a couple of porsches.

This is such a stupid post. First of all the 'kids' are most likely going to be around 60-65 when their surviving parent (probably mother) goes into dotage, and at that age a Porsche is likely to be the last thing on their minds. Most probably they will be worrying about how to get by on a pittance of a state pension.

Pollycat

mildred1978 wrote: »

2 year old thread, people!!!

Yes, and the post that brought it up to the top again has now been deleted as it was advertising.

cavework

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

This is such a stupid post. First of all the 'kids' are most likely going to be around 60-65 when their surviving parent (probably mother) goes into dotage, and at that age a Porsche is likely to be the last thing on their minds. Most probably they will be worrying about how to get by on a pittance of a state pension.

I am 51 .. and the only surviving child... Porsche?
I have two parents .. one in a Nursing Home and one still living in the family home and both over 85.
I brought up my Kids and went straight into becoming the Parent to my Parents through no fault of theirs.
A lot of us in this situation will be lucky to still be drawing breath by the time we are old enough to worry about state pension and care home fee's for ourselves.. we will be ruddy well burned out well before then.