Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees

Doc_N

Nick_de_Naeyer wrote: »

I dont want to bring it further into a political discussion but I disagree with the attitude that by not using our property to pay for care, that we are not living off the next generation.
We have already paid for these services by our tax and national insurance. We have also paid tax on the money we have saved to pay for our homes.
For the government to turn round and say the 'insurance' you paid for now doesnt cover your care, is downright dishonest. Also, to make us think we are abusing the system by claiming our rightful dues is astonishing brainwashing.

I think you are mistaken, for a number of reasons, but primarily because your tax and National Insurance contributions did not actually provide you with insurance against the future. They went to pay for the people who were benefiting at that time. That's the way the system in the UK works - current contributions fund current 'claimants'.

Think about how little you actually paid in, and how much you'd be getting out now. The two sums are leagues apart.

The other key point is that the welfare state (NHS apart) was never intended to fund those who had assets. It was a safety net for those who had no savings. If people have large assets in the shape of houses (and I count myself and my parents in this) there is no reason at all why those assets shouldn't be used to fund care home fees (and again I specifically exclude genuine NHS-funded health requirements).

Parents like to leave assets for their children/grandchildren, and they obviously like to inherit. But if the state is picking up the tab for the cost of care home fees it's effectively subsidising those who want to inherit at the expense of everyone else.

charlieismydarling

Most of the equity in your property has been obtained through favourable conditions in the property market as opposed to hard work.

Plenty of us work hard, very hard and have no hope of property ownership due to the price of property. Those who have profited from this increase in this price now need to use this equity to fund their own care.
Why the hell should those of working fund your care when you have the means to and provide your offspring with an inheritance?

moneyistooshorttomention

The one thing for sure is that the argument between those who agree homes can be taken to pay for care and those who don't is never going to be resolved - except possibly by the passage of time - as a higher and higher proportion of people don't remember things being any different.

From memory, I believe it was when I was in my 30s that the Government started taking peoples homes to pay for their care and that they hadn't done so prior to that? I may be wrong on the date of that - but I'm pretty certain of it and that would make it in the 1980s probably that the "its okay to grab the homes" thing started.

So - probably, in the main, people are going to be polarised around those who got to adulthood before the Government started doing that and bought their own homes duly disagreeing with the Government doing this on the one hand.

On the other hand those who came to adulthood from the 1980s onwards and/or don't own their own homes thinking its okay to home-grab.

I doubt either side will ever back down on this.

I know I won't from the pov that I have - ie adulthood reached before the 1980s and I own my own (modest) home. I might well think totally differently if I were 30 years younger and renting. Most people have the viewpoint that suits themselves personally.

Mojisola

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

From memory, I believe it was when I was in my 30s that the Government started taking peoples homes to pay for their care and that they hadn't done so prior to that?

The Government doesn't ever take people's homes.

If you are assessed as needing financial help, you are given it.

If you don't need it, it's up to you how the care home bill is paid - the council/government/social services aren't involved - it's not their problem.

charlieismydarling

Another factor is that many that are effected by this policy have benefited from retiring much earlier than is available now, and given that they have gone into care are unlikely to need their former home.
Why expect others to pay for their new home while keeping their old home?

chesky

charlieismydarling wrote: »

Another factor is that many that are effected by this policy have benefited from retiring much earlier than is available now, and given that they have gone into care are unlikely to need their former home.
Why expect others to pay for their new home while keeping their old home?

Oh, come on Charlie get real, it's their middle-aged children who REALLY care. They've been calculating for years how much they'll get in their inheritance.

pollypenny

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The one thing for sure is that the argument between those who agree homes can be taken to pay for care and those who don't is never going to be resolved - except possibly by the passage of time - as a higher and higher proportion of people don't remember things being any different.

From memory, I believe it was when I was in my 30s that the Government started taking peoples homes to pay for their care and that they hadn't done so prior to that? I may be wrong on the date of that - but I'm pretty certain of it and that would make it in the 1980s probably that the "its okay to grab the homes" thing started.

So - probably, in the main, people are going to be polarised around those who got to adulthood before the Government started doing that and bought their own homes duly disagreeing with the Government doing this on the one hand.

On the other hand those who came to adulthood from the 1980s onwards and/or don't own their own homes thinking its okay to home-grab.

I doubt either side will ever back down on this.

I know I won't from the pov that I have - ie adulthood reached before the 1980s and I own my own (modest) home. I might well think totally differently if I were 30 years younger and renting. Most people have the viewpoint that suits themselves personally.

I came to adulthood in 1968, when I was 21.

I fully understand that no government 'takes' or 'grabs' a house to pay for care and such emotive language is childish.

Im happy to fund those that cannot fund themselves, through my taxes. However, I'm blowed if I'll fund some selfish git who thinks he's the only one who has worked hard and saved and now wants to leave assets to the family.

Pollycat

pollypenny wrote: »

Im happy to fund those that cannot fund themselves, through my taxes. However, I'm blowed if I'll fund some selfish git who thinks he's the only one who has worked hard and saved and now wants to leave assets to the family.

^^^^ This. :T

Errata

Always makes me laugh. Most of those moving into residential care in their 70's / 80's will have paid a very few thousand quid for their first home, may have moved up the ladder, but still with a monthly mortgage far less than rent would be. And all they had to do was sit in their home and Lord Inflation will have looked after any increase in value.
But........ the depths of human greed should never be under estimated.

Doc_N

Errata wrote: »

Always makes me laugh. Most of those moving into residential care in their 70's / 80's will have paid a very few thousand quid for their first home, may have moved up the ladder, but still with a monthly mortgage far less than rent would be. And all they had to do was sit in their home and Lord Inflation will have looked after any increase in value.
But........ the depths of human greed should never be under estimated.

But it does tend to be the sons and daughters who are doing the complaining - because they're the ones losing the inheritance they'd banked on.