Grandad losing his house!

nannytone_2

Barneysmom wrote: »

I agree nannytone.
That's why as soon as my mortgage is paid off we're signing our house over to our daughter.
I've worked all my life, got a private pension that I've paid into all my working life, I've paid into the system all my life so what I own is mine and the government aren't having a penny of it.

lol. cant say i blame you!
i'm registered blind and unable to work. my husband pays into 2 private pensions. but the only way it will pay is if he dies as soon as he retires!

the only real benefit of paying into a pension is knowinbg what will happen rather than leaving it to chance. even if it leaves you worse off!

have a private pension and then get ill.
its the only way to know that you will be looked after!

Barneysmom

I still don't see why someone should lose their home whether it is ex-council or not.

SingleSue

danlojo wrote: »

I was referring to the ones who cant be bothered to work, not the disabled or ones who genuinely cannot find work.

My nan worked incredibly hard all her life but also lived in a council house, had no disabilities and no savings.

Mind you, she also didn't need to go into a care home and she died before all the top ups that are now available.

My parents own their own home, dad has worked since the age of 14, mum stopped work when she married at 17. Dad has a decent pension, mum relies on dad's contribution, dad has been registered disabled since 1972, they receive no top ups due to low income - his private pension is very decent,or extra benefits (and no disabled ones either) and have savings.....mum is adamant that neither of them will be going into a care home (not because of cost or anything). We as their children, on the other hand, fully accept that if it came to it, their house will provide for a more comfortable end of their days if they do need a care home, rather than one chosen for them and paid for them by the state.

Just because a person does not own their home, does not make them unemployed, disabled or lazy. It is not clear cut...plus it is very possible to be quite badly disabled and still work, as my dad proved (albeit with a 2 year break while he was in hospital that is) and still own your own home.

pelirocco

Barneysmom wrote: »

I still don't see why someone should lose their home whether it is ex-council or not.

They arent losing it , if you go into care you are very unlikely to go back to your home . The only ones who are losing it are those it might be left to in a will .

They would be losing a house , home is where ever you chose to live and all homes require money for their upkeep

ubesco

Barneysmom wrote: »

I agree nannytone.
That's why as soon as my mortgage is paid off we're signing our house over to our daughter.
I've worked all my life, got a private pension that I've paid into all my working life, I've paid into the system all my life so what I own is mine and the government aren't having a penny of it.

I'm with you on that one!

Me and the wife have already started doing this. Apart from the house that the state are paying the mortgage for, everything and I mean everything has been moved over to our son. As long as it is 7 years or more, there is no tax bill. We now own nothing apart from the equity in the house, which is the next thing to go this year.

I don't mind being poor as long as my family get to keep everything I have worked for.

I'm in pretty good health at the mo, so hopefully it will be years before we may need to go into care.
My mother in law had nothing and lived in a council flat. When she went into care it was paid by the council. We were able to choose were she went. We looked at 5 and got the best for her. Others in the home were paying for their own keep. Others were paid by the council.

All, apart from a couple of £k is now in a separate account in our son's name.
It has worked out well for now. Benefits cover more or less everything, and son helps out with the odd thing - taxing & insuring the car.

pelirocco

The government arent getting your money!!


I suggest you all go and look at the standard of care that is out there for ''free'' then think again

welshmoneylover

pelirocco wrote: »

The government arent getting your money!!


I suggest you all go and look at the standard of care that is out there for ''free'' then think again

I agree, the difference between council and private care is vast.

Private is much better

margaretclare

ubesco wrote: »

I'm with you on that one!

Me and the wife have already started doing this. Apart from the house that the state are paying the mortgage for, everything and I mean everything has been moved over to our son. As long as it is 7 years or more, there is no tax bill. We now own nothing apart from the equity in the house, which is the next thing to go this year.

I don't mind being poor as long as my family get to keep everything I have worked for.

I'm in pretty good health at the mo, so hopefully it will be years before we may need to go into care.
My mother in law had nothing and lived in a council flat. When she went into care it was paid by the council. We were able to choose were she went. We looked at 5 and got the best for her. Others in the home were paying for their own keep. Others were paid by the council.

All, apart from a couple of £k is now in a separate account in our son's name.
It has worked out well for now. Benefits cover more or less everything, and son helps out with the odd thing - taxing & insuring the car.

I don't know when I last read a post that made me so angry.

'The state' are not paying your mortgage. WE are. That means me, my DH, all the other taxpayers in the land. Yes, although DH and I are retired pensioners, we're still taxpayers.

'Benefits cover'....again, this comes from us. All of us. 'You don't mind being poor'. Fine. If you're living on benefits, with the rest of us paying your mortgage (interest only, that would be) you're defined as being poor.

A phone call to the Benefits Agency from someone who has more knowledge of where you live, methinks.

margaretclare

goffo wrote: »

I can see where you are coming from, but has not that person also contributed to others who claimed benefits in the past when he might have been working?

I and my husband have paid into the tax system for years and will probably continue to do so like you when we are retired. However, if he doesn't have an income now and is relying on benefits to pay his bills, surely he is entitled to what the government say he can have?
It might come to us, we don't know, but if it does, would you say that we shouldn't get the help either?

What would you do if you were in similar circumstances?

I do not say that he should not have what the government says he is entitled to. I am not saying that at all. What made me so cross was the general tone of the letter, especially the 2 sentences that I highlighted. He thinks that by 'not owning anything' i.e. moving everything into his son's ownership, he absolves himself of all responsibility for his own well-being.

I would regard this as highly risky, and if that means I don't trust the son then...I don't trust the son! I once had a very illuminating conversation with a solicitor who practised family law. She said 'You only have to sit in this chair at this desk for a while and you see the very worst of human nature. Loving family members can turn into ravening wolves where the possibility of getting money from other family members is on the horizon'.

BTW, in similar circumstances I would claim what I was entitled to. My first husband did not work because of heart disease for the last 15 years of his life and obviously he claimed for not being able to work. However we did not brag in public about hiding assets or giving them away, as the poster has done. In fact, when MIL developed dementia we used the proceeds of the sale of her house to pay for her care. The alternative, that of her continuing to live with us was just too awful. I suppose we could have concealed that money, but we felt it was being put to good use.

Oldernotwiser

Barneysmom wrote: »

I agree nannytone.
That's why as soon as my mortgage is paid off we're signing our house over to our daughter.
I've worked all my life, got a private pension that I've paid into all my working life, I've paid into the system all my life so what I own is mine and the government aren't having a penny of it.

I cannot understand how you see this as giving money to the government! It's your money that you could be using to pay for your care. Where does the government come into it?

(I will also find it hilarious if your daughter then decides to sell your house - which won't actually be yours any longer - and spend the money jetting round the world with her toy boy. And good luck to her!)

Edit: Actually, I hope she elopes with Ubesco's son and they have a jet set lifestyle living on the money that the pair of you scroungers will have given them!