Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees

Tuesday_Tenor

Morrison117 wrote: »

No, it wouldn't be the OP's generation at all.
It would be the generations that followed on. The second generation after those who are now in most need of support and care - because that second generation hasn't discovered the meaning of self-support.
.

Interesting.

In my eyes it's the generation in between that (with many exceptions of course) is both
(a) failing the second generation if it's allowing them not to learn the meaning of self-support, and
(b) failing its parents' generation if it both expects someone else to care for its parents in old age AND still have the house to inherit.

I'm of the generation in between, myself, by the way.
I've recently inherited my parents house. It was still available to be inherited as I gave up more than a few years' professional salary, and lived largely on my own savings, in order to care for them. Not for the monetary reasons, but because I wanted to and felt a duty to do so, as they had done for their parents.

I accept many things in society have changed since I was born over 50 years ago. Smaller families for one thing. There have always been children who moved away, and didn't play a part in carng for parents. But when there were 5 or 6 children there would usually have been one or two who were available for caring for parents in old age. Interestingly, where I live in rural Wales it was often the children who stayed at home to care who inherited the house. This was often just accepted; didn't cause any ructions. Was just how the families sorted out their responsibilities to each other: the ones that hadn't had the chance to move from home or to earn much got the house. Now with smaller families, only 2 or 3 children who've all moved away, the caring becomes a problem. So the potential inheritance has to be used for care. Those who don't do the care don't get the house. But that's how it was years ago anyway!

The push and trend for smaller families has had consequences which perhaps should have been foreseen, but weren't.

Many more issues in our complex times of course; difficulty getting on the propery ladder. But ... then again ... my grandparents rented throughout their lives. It was my parents' generation that became the one where 'ordinary' people owned houses; working class people who took out mortgages in the increasingly prosperous '60s. It hasn't always been thus.

What we need to remember is that each generation faces different issues; there is no 'norm'. Why then should there be such specific 'expectations', i.e. OP's children MUST eventually receive the grandparent's assests, regardless of all other consideratons. Why so?

Yes, as a society we haven't really worked out how we want to pay for care in old age: Save up ouselves to pay for it? Pay realistic taxes to cover it? Expect our children to do it? Expect our children to pay for it, directly or indirectly by not inheriting?

Tuesday_Tenor

McKneff wrote: »

If you are male and around 60 will you marry me;)

McKneff
I hoped Morrison's aware that in post #11 you let slip the little matter of ... ahem ... an OH.
I declare an impediment ....:p

Tuesday Tenor
(Female tenor, by the way, so don't ask me either!)

savvyme_4

Veryannoyed wrote: »

I'll report back on how I get on. I'm not sure how we own the property at the moment but like McKneff I have also heard of being tenants in common and this sounds like a suitable option.

I'm sorry if anyone thinks trying to pass my home on to my children is evading my 'dues' to the state but my mother paid taxes all her life, my father was an army officer who bought his home out of taxed income and I don't see why, when they have never taken a penny from the state except in a small state pension, all their assets should be taken away when other people who have spent all their money get the same care for nothing. It's not going to happen to me if there is any legal way to stop it.

totally agree :T

clemmatis

Veryannoyed wrote: »

I'm sorry if anyone thinks trying to pass my home on to my children is evading my 'dues' to the state but my mother paid taxes all her life, my father was an army officer who bought his home out of taxed income and I don't see why, when they have never taken a penny from the state except in a small state pension, all their assets should be taken away when other people who have spent all their money get the same care for nothing. It's not going to happen to me if there is any legal way to stop it.

My father served in the RAF in World War II, my mother and brother lived in a heavily bombed city and sheltered from bombs nightly. My mother and father, like your parents, never took a penny from the state except for their state pensions. (My mother despised women who paid the "married women's stamp", so she had a state pension; but as she'd had to leave work through illness, it was small.)

Never took a penny, that is, except for the other penny your parents took too: NHS care for themselves and their children, education for their children, maternity benefit and child allowance, and so on.

I'd prefer not to pay for your care as well as mine. But at least I'll be able to choose my care home, and not have to go wherever a council chooses to send me.

margaretclare

(My mother despised women who paid the "married women's stamp", so she had a state pension; but as she'd had to leave work through illness, it was small.)

If your Mum had claimed sickness benefit when she became ill, her NI contributions would have been credited to her. Also, after 1978 Home Responsibilities Protection was created to cover women who'd paid full contributions so that would have covered some if not all of the years she'd spent at home looking after children.

margaretclare

But when there were 5 or 6 children there would usually have been one or two who were available for caring for parents in old age.

This is an idealised state of affairs which didn't always happen.

I had a great-great-grandmother who died in 1912 in the local workhouse infirmary. When I was growing up I was told they 'couldn't do with her at home'. Couldn't do with her. No more explanation than that.

I also had a great-uncle, much later, who was consigned to a geriatric hospital, this was in the late 50s. No longer a workhouse infirmary, the only difference was that it was painted magnolia instead of dark green. Similar to where his brother-in-law, my grandad, had died in 1948 just before the NHS.

clemmatis

margaretclare wrote: »

If your Mum had claimed sickness benefit when she became ill, her NI contributions would have been credited to her. Also, after 1978 Home Responsibilities Protection was created to cover women who'd paid full contributions so that would have covered some if not all of the years she'd spent at home looking after children.

She didn't claim any long term form of Sickness Benefit. She'd had to become a Supply Teacher partly because she'd moved city -- no jobs there -- partly because from the time my brother was born, till I was seven, she'd chosen to stay at home with us. And after a particularly stressful placement in a secondary modern school, she, well, she broke down and resigned. Today, there'd be more help for her. And yes, HRP's good.

She reached retirement age before 1978.

But really, she didn't complain about any of that. When she worked, she paid full NI, and also of course paid into the Teachers' Superannuation Fund. (I forgot that!.)

When my father died unexpectedly, though, she was very worried about money. But he had squirreled away a fair amount of money, enough for her to feel secure and for me -- when the time came, again, unexpectedly -- to be able to choose a good nursing home for her.

But thank you, margaretclare. And I am very sorry about what happened to your relatives.

cavework

Let me just explain one thing .. no one .. absolutely no one gets free Nursing home care.
They may be subsidised by Adult Social Services if they have savings under a certain amount or their spouse still lives in the owned marital home. But all their income except 50% of an occupational pension (if the spouse is living) less pocket money of approx £22 a week is used to pay for fees.
Couples where one resides in a Nursing home are treated by the benefits office as single claimants.
There are options for top ups to be paid in many different ways. The British Legeon, Unions are two.
Also people subsidised by Adult Social Services do find places in private Nursing homes and many are fantastic but the quality of the rooms are often not as 'shall we say as 'special' as those being paid for by the self funded residents there. The quality of care is exactly the same and is monitored by visits to establish the clients subsidised by Adult Social services are being well looked after.
I have just attended one of these meetings and I was amazed at how thorough the person from Social services was to ensure all our needs were being met.
People who are self funding can still claim attendance allowance .. those funded do not get this.

McKneff

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

McKneff
I hoped Morrison's aware that in post #11 you let slip the little matter of ... ahem ... an OH.
I declare an impediment ....:p

Tuesday Tenor
(Female tenor, by the way, so don't ask me either!)

I've just got back to this thread, sorry:D

ooh, i was hoping no one would notice.

You little dobber, you;)

McKneff

My brother in laws parents, born and bred in Newcastle were staunch labour, grafted all their lives, lived in a council house, and were one of the generation who expected to be cared for in there old age, I suppose, they didnt expect it, they never even thought about it, they just plodded on. At the same time, private pensions were never thought of either

When my brother in law had the audacity to take out a mortgage and buy a house, he was branded an 'upstart and a tory'

Like someone says, each generation is different and face different scenarios.