Transferring Home to Children

noh

Saver-Rob wrote: »

I fully agree with OP. People who have saved their whole life should not be paying for care while people with no money pay nothing!!

Are you serious?

People who have saved are able to pay for care.
People who have nothing are not able to pay therefore need help from taxpayers.

Are you suggesting that taxpayers should subsidise those that are capable of funding themselves?
In many cases all that will acheive is an increase in the amount left to their heirs.

noh

JJ2734 wrote: »

I think my parents have paid enough tax so I hardly think the local tax payer is subsidising anyone.

Who do you think would be paying the care home fees if your parents aren't able to pay?

Adams1

noh wrote: »

Are you serious?

People who have saved are able to pay for care.
People who have nothing are not able to pay therefore need help from taxpayers.

Are you suggesting that taxpayers should subsidise those that are capable of funding themselves?
In many cases all that will acheive is an increase in the amount left to their heirs.

By the way you make things sound... You don't have much of an idea of what a will or inheritance is. What is the point of paying tax all your life, if you'll never see a penny of it? Why is it the people, according to the OP, who have paid tax all their lives, are all of a sudden not included in the "we, the taxpayers" club? Hmm...

Adams1

noh wrote: »

Who do you think would be paying the care home fees if your parents aren't able to pay?

What are you, feeding off the taxes yourself and are scared that people with money may take that away from you? Pfft. If I where the OP's parents, and I came here and read this, I would feel disgusted.

Blobby8_2

noh wrote: »

Are you serious?

People who have saved are able to pay for care.
People who have not saved are not able to pay therefore need help from taxpayers.

You are suggesting that taxpayers should subsidise everyone equally
In many cases what that will acheive is an increase in the amount left to their heirs.

Think this is what the OP means

noh

Adams1 wrote: »

What are you, feeding off the taxes yourself and are scared that people with money may take that away from you? Pfft. If I where the OP's parents, and I came here and read this, I would feel disgusted.

No
Should the need occur I'm in a position to pay for my own care as are the OPs parents.

The only people who would benefit from the OPs plan would be the OP and his sister.
Those that would lose would be the taxpayer and the OPs parents.

noh

Adams1 wrote: »

By the way you make things sound... You don't have much of an idea of what a will or inheritance is. What is the point of paying tax all your life, if you'll never see a penny of it? Why is it the people, according to the OP, who have paid tax all their lives, are all of a sudden not included in the "we, the taxpayers" club? Hmm...

What are you talking about?

Flyboy152

solnik wrote: »

On the same theme, my boss has transferred two properties to two of his children, he did this without professional advice after reading about it in Investors Chronicle. Now our accountant says that he liable for the capital gains tax on the market value of these properties. He thinks that he has no liability as there was no cash exchange. What do the experts think

His accountant is spot on.

Flyboy152

knack wrote: »

Why should care in old age be free if one has the money to pay for it? Surely this is draining essential funds that could be better spent elsewhere - say maybe on those who dont have the money to pay.

Totally agree. Otherwise why should the children benefit from something they haven't worked for. They seem to want to have their cake and eat someone else's.

Adams1

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Totally agree. Otherwise why should the children benefit from something they haven't worked for. They seem to want to have their cake and eat someone else's.

Huh? Wouldn't your argument work the other way too? Why should the parents NOT benifit from something that HAVE paid for... All their lives.