Parents in Care

nanna_b

Hi

Both my parents are in care now so we will have to sell their home to pay for it, they want to give us some cash from the sale, my questions is if we take this and they later run out of money, will the care home/ local authorities expect us to pay for their keep?:eek:

RAS

Quite simply yes.

Deprivation of capital.

pinkshoes

Isn't it £3000 per year (per child) tax free gift?

And I'm sure you can set up some sort of family trust??

EDIT: Reading THIS, it looks like there's no time limit that the council can chase the asset if they feel it was sold to avoid care home fees.

Sucks doesn't it? As they could have sold it, blown the lot, and a wild retirement when still fit and healthy, then lived off the state. That's what happens when you save!

Person_one

pinkshoes wrote: »

Isn't it £3000 per year (per child) tax free gift?

And I'm sure you can set up some sort of family trust??

EDIT: Reading THIS, it looks like there's no time limit that the council can chase the asset if they feel it was sold to avoid care home fees.

Sucks doesn't it? As they could have sold it, blown the lot, and a wild retirement when still fit and healthy, then lived off the state. That's what happens when you save!

Not exactly, google deprivation of capital.

State care homes aren't necessarily the nicest places to spend your last years, if they can afford a higher standard and quality of life then surely that's what happens when you save and that's not such a bad outcome?

Nicki

Interesting that OP finds it hair raising that she should pay something towards her own parents care (out of money given to her as a gift), but not at all hair raising that the rest of us should pay for it through our taxes, to enable her to have a nice little nest egg from the parents. Where is that confused smilie when it is really needed.

McKneff

Nicki wrote: »

Interesting that OP finds it hair raising that she should pay something towards her own parents care (out of money given to her as a gift), but not at all hair raising that the rest of us should pay for it through our taxes, to enable her to have a nice little nest egg from the parents. Where is that confused smilie when it is really needed.

While I understand what you are saying, youre being a tad unfair,
the op said 'some cash' not how much, maybe meant a little or a lot, who knows, but they seemed quite resigned to the fact that the house would have to be sold primarily to fund care costs.

CL

Nicki wrote: »

Interesting that OP finds it hair raising that she should pay something towards her own parents care (out of money given to her as a gift), but not at all hair raising that the rest of us should pay for it through our taxes, to enable her to have a nice little nest egg from the parents. Where is that confused smilie when it is really needed.

I don't think this is the point. Why should some lazy dole bludger, who has never paid any taxes, get care in their old age free, when someone who has worked hard and paid taxes all their life has to pay. Equally, why should someone who has worked their whole life and paid taxes, but saved, have to pay, when someone who has worked and paid the same taxes, but not saved anything, doesn't.

If you have decided not to have luxurious holidays or new cars all your life because you want to give your children something, why should the government take it to pay for something that others get for free.

The system is rubbish. It shouldn't penalise those who pay taxes and benefit those who don't.

gingin_2

CL wrote: »

I don't think this is the point. Why should some lazy dole bludger, who has never paid any taxes, get care in their old age free, when someone who has worked hard and paid taxes all their life has to pay. Equally, why should someone who has worked their whole life and paid taxes, but saved, have to pay, when someone who has worked and paid the same taxes, but not saved anything, doesn't.

The system is rubbish. It shouldn't penalise those who pay taxes and benefit those who don't.

But the standard of care between someone who pays and someone who doesn't, differs greatly.

Nicki

McKneff wrote: »

While I understand what you are saying, youre being a tad unfair,
the op said 'some cash' not how much, maybe meant a little or a lot, who knows, but they seemed quite resigned to the fact that the house would have to be sold primarily to fund care costs.

Am I? If the house is sold and the parents give OP say £5,000, and a sibling a similar amount, that leaves the tax payer paying an extra £10,000 towards the parents care, and OP and her sibling £5,000 each better off. It might not be a huge sum on the scale of the proceeds of the average house, but on the other hand why should the taxpayer subsidize the OP and her sibling in this way, particularly when public funds are in short supply and most local authorities are having to cut their expenditure to the absolute bone?

Most of us have no problem with the concept that we will look after our elderly relatives to the best of our abilities. We may not be able to take them into our own homes for various reasons, but I don't really understand personally why it is horrifying that the parents own money should be applied to their own needs in old age, and why it is reasonable to think it should instead be diverted to the younger generation with the tax payer looking after the elderly person.

Nicki

CL wrote: »

I don't think this is the point. Why should some lazy dole bludger, who has never paid any taxes, get care in their old age free, when someone who has worked hard and paid taxes all their life has to pay. Equally, why should someone who has worked their whole life and paid taxes, but saved, have to pay, when someone who has worked and paid the same taxes, but not saved anything, doesn't.

If you have decided not to have luxurious holidays or new cars all your life because you want to give your children something, why should the government take it to pay for something that others get for free.

The system is rubbish. It shouldn't penalise those who pay taxes and benefit those who don't.

Because the country is broke frankly!

The cuts I have already seen in public services are draconian, and they are only going to get worse. Local authorities just don't have the money to make a universal offer of free care for all, and if they are forced to do so one of two things will happen. Either the threshold for being taken into residential care will be raised to the extent that elderly people will literally be left to die in their own homes uncared for, or the standard of free care being offered will drop even further to the extent that we will all be horrified by the levels of neglect we will see due to understaffing, with elderly people not being helped with feeding and toileting, as happens already on some overstretched nhs wards.

CL

gingin wrote: »

But the standard of care between someone who pays and someone who doesn't, differs greatly.

Not where I live. My MIL is in a care home and those who pay and those who don't are both in the same homes with the same care. We looked at several homes and they were all like this.