Signing house over to children?

Errata

captainhaggis wrote: »

Because someone without their own home would get it for free. Why shoudl the OP's mother have to pay for her care because she's invested wisely when others get it all for free having squandered every penny they've ever made? :rolleyes:

Many older people find themselves living in a house that they probably paid a couple of thousand for and were lucky enough to see it climb in value to it's present day price. They did nothing to make this happen, they didn't save to make it happen, they probably paid far less in mortgage payments than they would have paid in rent over the same timescale. As my elderly stepdad says "It's free money."

donquine

sunshinetours wrote: »

Think personally I would rather ensure my assets went to fund a comfortable retirement in whatever shape that takes rather than giving it all away so that some spoilt kids who expect an inheritance can get what is "rightfully theirs". [...]

Its called personal responsilbility and self pride something that seems rather unfashionable these days

My parents have worked hard and saved up all their lives with the intention of retiring comfortably and leaving as much as possible to their family. Given how old they are, I don't think it's unreasonable they grew up with the belief that the NHS would look after them when they needed help. After all, they've paid an enormous amount of NI in their lives. They have paid into the system.

I'm not a spoilt kid - I'm quite capable of supporting myself and I do. In fact, I support my OH too. I am one fiercely independent lady. However, I understand my parents' wish to leave something behind of themselves and I understand that, like the OP's mother, they would be upset for their family home to be forcibly taken and sold off, rather than staying in the family. That doesn't mean me. I'd be quite happy for my siblings or their kids to get the house.

I'm not hovering around like a vulture - I don't want or need anything from my parents. I'm just mindful of their wishes.

I think this thread is getting away from the OP's original questions. I'm afraid I don't have much more to offer there.

Regshoe

The problem with our whole social care system is that it does not always distinguish (and logistically speaking unfortunately will probably never be able to) between those who are needy and those who are lazy.

Take the example of the care home situation. Some people may work all of their lives, invest well, save well and be in a position where they need care. They have the assets to pay for it, they don't need the state to help them - they have the assets to pay for the help. Now whether they should have to pay, bearing in mind that they have been paying taxes and national insurance for years that pays for social care is another argument.

Then you have people who have also worked hard all their lives (or perhaps have genuinely been unable to through disability or ill health), but for whatever reason never made a lot of money, perhaps never owned any significant assets like a house, or had to sell it at an earlier point. If they now end up in a situation where they need care they do need help from the state to pay for the care. Do they deserve it? Well they may not have paid as much tax and NI as the first set of people - but they have worked where able, or at least have a good reason why they could not contribute, so morally yes surely they are deserving.

Then we come to the last case - the dole dossing layabout scum, the people who have probably been claiming benefits most of their lives, have 5 kids (all of which we have paid for) etc etc. These are people who could work but have chosen not to out of sheer laziness, potentially they have also been claiming other benefits to which they are not entitled. They also don't have much in the way of assets as the council owns there house (letting them live there for free). Do they deserve care to be paid for? Do they hell! But do we just ignore them and collect the corpses in a few weeks? It might be nice to - but I doubt the bleeding heart liberals will let us

The difficulty is setting up a system - that stops the 3rd lot sponging off the first 2, as a country we are bad enough at identifying who is type 2 qand who is type 3, so an easy fix isn't imminent. The current system isn't great - but how do we improve it?

I do think that people should do everything they can (within the rules) to keep the tax man away from their assets - there are rules to stop blatant tax evasion (as long as you aren't covering things up), but if you can keep hold of your assets within the rules then good luck to you.

Back on topic for a second - I can't see a way out for the OP without getting pulled up at a later point.

sunshinetours

Regshoe wrote: »

The problem with our whole social care system is that it does not always distinguish (and logistically speaking unfortunately will probably never be able to) between those who are needy and those who are lazy.

Take the example of the care home situation. Some people may work all of their lives, invest well, save well and be in a position where they need care. They have the assets to pay for it, they don't need the state to help them - they have the assets to pay for the help. Now whether they should have to pay, bearing in mind that they have been paying taxes and national insurance for years that pays for social care is another argument.

Then you have people who have also worked hard all their lives (or perhaps have genuinely been unable to through disability or ill health), but for whatever reason never made a lot of money, perhaps never owned any significant assets like a house, or had to sell it at an earlier point. If they now end up in a situation where they need care they do need help from the state to pay for the care. Do they deserve it? Well they may not have paid as much tax and NI as the first set of people - but they have worked where able, or at least have a good reason why they could not contribute, so morally yes surely they are deserving.

Then we come to the last case - the dole dossing layabout scum, the people who have probably been claiming benefits most of their lives, have 5 kids (all of which we have paid for) etc etc. These are people who could work but have chosen not to out of sheer laziness, potentially they have also been claiming other benefits to which they are not entitled. They also don't have much in the way of assets as the council owns there house (letting them live there for free). Do they deserve care to be paid for? Do they hell! But do we just ignore them and collect the corpses in a few weeks? It might be nice to - but I doubt the bleeding heart liberals will let us

The difficulty is setting up a system - that stops the 3rd lot sponging off the first 2, as a country we are bad enough at identifying who is type 2 qand who is type 3, so an easy fix isn't imminent. The current system isn't great - but how do we improve it?

I do think that people should do everything they can (within the rules) to keep the tax man away from their assets - there are rules to stop blatant tax evasion (as long as you aren't covering things up), but if you can keep hold of your assets within the rules then good luck to you.

Back on topic for a second - I can't see a way out for the OP without getting pulled up at a later point.

Agree with all of this

I'm not hovering around like a vulture - I don't want or need anything from my parents. I'm just mindful of their wishes

Wasn't meant personally at you Donquine - sorry if that's how it seemed. Purely quoted part of your message

The vast majoity of people do not require full time residential care in their old age but I do understand it is something many worry about. I do not agree that us tax payers should have to fund the general living costs part of someone's retirement

As people live longer we are all going to struggle to fund the necessary strain on the welfare system in general - funding all residential care and somewhere free to stay for pensioners really would break the already broken system

margaretclare

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

At which point of course she would be required to account for the proceeds of sale.

I must say that those who talk about people having free care probably have not visited those residential homes. I had the experience of placing both my mum and my MIL in care homes both of whom went into privately funded homes, but I can tell you that should I require residential care in my old age, my own property will definitely fund my care. Sorry, but I worked hard for my home and I expect it to fund my twilight years should that become necessary.

I completely agree with this - my sentiments exactly.

Someone in an earlier post mentioned that mum had 'invested wisely'. No she didn't. All she did was to buy her home. The fact that it is now more than she ever dreamed of it due to the crazy house values increases of the last few years, not due to any 'wise investment'!

There are completely opposing ways of looking at this. As LazyDaisy says above, 'I worked hard for my home and I expect it to fund my twilight years should that become necessary'. The opposite view is 'I worked hard for my home but I do not want it to be treated as an asset to fund my twilight years, and to that end, I will investigate any legal or illegal means of getting my twilight years' care funded by the taxpayer, and keep my assets out of the equation'!

chewmylegoff

demanding free care for anyone elderly, regardless of their assets, is silly - you're only going to have to pay more tax to fund it.

in the same way that we don't all get our housing costs paid by the government just because we pay tax on our salaries, we don't all get free care when we're older.

if you can afford to pay for something that is a basic need, you pay for it. if you can't you turn to the state for help. that's how it works for everything else, why should this be any different?

any argument that it is acceptable to disburse your assets to avoid paying for care, just because other people who can't afford it don't have to pay is effectively a subset of an argument against the entire principle of taxation as a means of redistributing wealth. "i paid taxes all my life so now i want care for free". just gibberish, i'm afraid.

the only reasonable argument i can see here is that she has worked all her life and been prudent, so therefore it should be her that benefits from the value of her assets by having access to a better care home in the event that she needs it. rather than her getting something basic off the tax payer whilst you walk away with a free house.

Errata

It would actually be quite possible for the state to fund the care of those who needed it 24/7 by going back to having large back wards in psychiatric hospitals where people were housed 20 to a ward. I doubt that is what most asset rich older people who want state funded care for themselves would find acceptable.

Trumpeter

chewmylegoff wrote: »

demanding free care for anyone elderly, regardless of their assets, is silly - you're only going to have to pay more tax to fund it.

in the same way that we don't all get our housing costs paid by the government just because we pay tax on our salaries, we don't all get free care when we're older.

if you can afford to pay for something that is a basic need, you pay for it. if you can't you turn to the state for help. that's how it works for everything else, why should this be any different?

any argument that it is acceptable to disburse your assets to avoid paying for care, just because other people who can't afford it don't have to pay is effectively a subset of an argument against the entire principle of taxation as a means of redistributing wealth. "i paid taxes all my life so now i want care for free". just gibberish, i'm afraid.

the only reasonable argument i can see here is that she has worked all her life and been prudent, so therefore it should be her that benefits from the value of her assets by having access to a better care home in the event that she needs it. rather than her getting something basic off the tax payer whilst you walk away with a free house.

Completely agree. And I think that most of the "idle !!!!less who have never worked a day in their lives" probably don't exist anyway. Most will live the sort of lifestyle that ensures they don't get to the care home stage. The real arguement is about not wanting to spend "my" inheritance. The only ones who are really getting something for nothing are the inheritors.
And of cousre until the old person requires specialised care, they could always come & live with you. But I bet most people wouldn't want that!!

Wicked_witch

Thank you Reg (loving the name!) for distinguishing between people who are genuinely needing help and those who are taking advantage. I see so many posts on the whole forum stating 'people on benefits should be forced to live on even less money/only get foodstamps/ be culled!!!' and find them very upsetting. My husband is disabled, I am his full time carer and we are on benefits- probably will be forever. I don't think we deserve to be made to live on the street or be murdered because of that. We have both worked and paid tax and NI for as long as possible and I am now saving 'the taxpayer' thousands of pounds a year by giving 24 hr care to my husband for the kingly sum of £53.10 a week.

I could go on a lot longer, but it's off topic and I am over-emotional with a bad cough! But again, thank you. Silly as it sounds, your thoughtful post means a lot. to add some on topic matter, we live in an HA home, are extremely grateful to have got one and look after it properly. We are also super polite to our neighbours so they won't think we are scummy. So hopefully the housing values won't drop too far!

Blimey, second edit as the above isn't on topic at all- I started thinking I was on the thread moaning about HA homes bringing down the price of executive flats (which also annoyed me). I'll get my coat...

sp1987

The op would also find it useful to obtain advice (e.g. via Age Concern) regarding NHS Continuing Care. Care home costs only need to be funded by the individual (i.e. after it is established that they have sufficient assets to do so) after it has been established that the individual does not satisfy the primary health need test that would mean the NHS funded their care in a nursing home. There has been a wealth of litigation and commentary in this area and a prudent person would do well to familiarise themselves with the issue in order that if a relative was to need nursing care for a primary health need (as opposed to the more vague idea of 'care' or a social need of some description) they would know the correct channels to appeal against any decision rejecting continuing care funding for them where they should be getting it according to their needs.

Not many people do need full time nursing care in their old age and of those who do, some/many (depends from which side of the fence you are arguing!) have been unfairly assessed to pay when their health needs fall under a category of those who should have said care funded by the NHS. If a person obtains NHS funded care, their assets are unaffected. Attacks the problem from a different angle without raising any welfare debates!