Signing house over to children?

property.advert

A very emotive subject this one and one which I feel strongly about. My personal belief is "sod them" for the very reasons outlined by one above who states that those who decided to squander their income throughout life are accommodated but those who forsook some of life's luxuries along the way have the asset they bought with that income taken from them and used to pay for their care.

I am however a pragmatist and leaving my personal feelings aside for a minute, I will address what I consider to be the main problem.

I believe the problem stems from the £23,000 figure. At a rate of £500 per week, a property valued at the average £223,000 or so, would see the potential inheritors lose the full £200,000 in a little under 8 years, assuming no inflation but there is elderly care inflation (BUPA circa 9% increase in 2009) and perhaps all could be lost in as few as 6 years. If two people required care then half those figures.

So you have a society where, rightly or wrongly, those who have bought their own home wish to pass on some of that capital accumulation to their offspring. We also have a housing market where this is becoming necessary as first time buyers cannot readily get onto the housing ladder without this trickle down of financial assistance from their elderly relatives.

I do not think the answer is to involve the private insurance industry as their profits will remove more cash from the problem. I believe that the burden has to be shared but I also believe that that burden does fall on the state to some degree. I see the main sticking point as the level to which the individual has to contribute.

I have not crunched any numbers yet to come up with my plan but it has to be a simple calculation which people can do for themselves. Perhaps a £50,000 contribution is the ballpark, perhaps less. Perhaps there should be an option to "take a chance" and choose either a one off lump sum which has no rebate for early death or a clawback which either goes out to an unlimited maximum or is perhaps capped at £250,000 or so.

Whatever the future decisions on this are, it cannot be equitable for people to be left with only £23,000 and that is the issue which governments will have to address. Until then, I say spend or get rid of the lot and let them come after you. Use some on advice on how to hide it. They are not going to leave you out on the street are they ? Unfair on the populous ? perhaps, but then so is the alternative.

Errata

If a couple own their home as joint tenants then the figures are slightly different. Plus the SRP, AA and any private pension will contribute towards funding the weekly fee. As the average length of stay in a care home is something in the region of 18 months there may be a a signifcant amount left from the sale of a property which can be bequeathed.

donquine

sunshinetours wrote: »

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

No offence taken.

sunshinetours wrote: »

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

If someone is unable to take care of themselves for medical reasons, we should look after them. You could argue it's our fault - the NHS has spent such a lot of money in prolonging people's lives - you can't make people live longer then abandon them!

I don't think money should come into it, when it comes to health. Everyone should have access to basic standards of welfare. For those unable to maintain those standards themselves, home help should be given or where this is not sufficient, a place in a care home. I don't really care how much money someone does or doesn't have - it's about dignity.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that such a system would be able to keep going until my retirement - pensionable age is gradually getting higher and the cynic in me says the whole concept of retirement will get phased out by the time I'm old. But that's fine, I'm growing up with this knowledge. The elderly people needing help now were led to believe a different story.

property.advert wrote: »

So you have a society where, rightly or wrongly, those who have bought their own home wish to pass on some of that capital accumulation to their offspring. We also have a housing market where this is becoming necessary as first time buyers cannot readily get onto the housing ladder without this trickle down of financial assistance from their elderly relatives.

Agree with the above wholeheartedly. Rightly or wrongly, this is the situation. Elderly folk have expectations of passing on their houses to their offspring.

We've given them these expectations and it's wrong to say no at this stage. We can only phase things in/out to affect later generations. Affects me adversely, but that's not the point.

Person_one

donquine wrote: »

No offence taken.



If someone is unable to take care of themselves for medical reasons, we should look after them. You could argue it's our fault - the NHS has spent such a lot of money in prolonging people's lives - you can't make people live longer then abandon them!

I don't think money should come into it, when it comes to health. Everyone should have access to basic standards of welfare. For those unable to maintain those standards themselves, home help should be given or where this is not sufficient, a place in a care home. I don't really care how much money someone does or doesn't have - it's about dignity.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that such a system would be able to keep going until my retirement - pensionable age is gradually getting higher and the cynic in me says the whole concept of retirement will get phased out by the time I'm old. But that's fine, I'm growing up with this knowledge. The elderly people needing help now were led to believe a different story.



Agree with the above wholeheartedly. Rightly or wrongly, this is the situation. Elderly folk have expectations of passing on their houses to their offspring.

We've given them these expectations and it's wrong to say no at this stage. We can only phase things in/out to affect later generations. Affects me adversely, but that's not the point.

Maybe that's the problem. My Grandparents (late 70's, mainly good health but starting to creak a bit) have always been clear about their plans to die penniless. They earned their money, its theirs to enjoy while they're alive and to look after them if they do need care.

Both their children are fully functioning adults who work and own their own homes, why on earth should my grandparents worry or feel pressure to scrimp and save in their final years so that independent adults can have a nice windfall that they'll spend on a holiday, a new car or re-doing the kitchen?

I fully expect my parents will have the same attitude and if (hopefully) they live a long life I don't expect a penny.

I should also add that I have no problem with a portion of my taxes being spent on services I will probably never use such as DLA, social housing, child services etc. I don't feel that I am entitled to get out what I paid in, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need or whatever the expression is!

Bootski

Very interesting debate, from both sides of the arguement, that keeps on cropping up!

I do understand both points of view, though don't always agree with the vitriol given by "tax payers" - I just wish people had more compassion

Look after your own as nobody might want to look after you in you old age.

Myself, I look forward to senality.

Bootski

I ain't anywhere near dead yet and have just inherited.

I'm in my early 40's and have not worked due to ill health for a few years

I can't secure my future due to certain laws on disposing my capital so what do you think I should do????

Bootski

To add I don't have any family of my own and won't now.....so?

Should I spend it?? Travel the world or buy a fast car??

Bootski

OK so I Will do both! Thanks very much for your input

Only, I felt a bit guilty, you know? having received a subtantial amount of money. what with the current arguemant, but now I know where it's all going

I feel sooooooooooooo fortunate, and lucky THANKS MUM!!

Me thinks it's not such a hot topic cause i isn't 90 years old and near death!

Same thing applies though!!

What would you do???? WITH ALL THAT MONEY??? Come on? 100K? inherited, or left to you once you mother or grandparents have copped it???

Would you buy a new kitchen, a new car or take aall the family on holiday to Florida!, Maybe pay off the mortgage or invest in Buy to let???

GDB2222

Bootski, I hope you're just a bit drunk. Otherwise, get help pronto, my friend.