gift house, benefits stop?

Mojisola

dd101 wrote: »

It kind of seems wrong in a way that people work hard all their life, pay their taxes but because they own a home, they have to sell it to pay for their care. I think people should be able to have this paid for them, for working their whole lifes and paying their taxes.

That would be very unfair on the people who don't need care and stay in their own homes and have to pay for food, utility bills, insurance, maintenance, council tax, etc, while their next door neighbour is in a care home having everything paid for them.

dd101

Mojisola wrote: »

That would be very unfair on the people who don't need care and stay in their own homes and have to pay for food, utility bills, insurance, maintenance, council tax, etc, while their next door neighbour is in a care home having everything paid for them.

I mean that people have paid their taxes to entitle them to benefits when they get older but who own their own, have to sell it to look after themselfs and cannot claim the benefits. Their homes have to be sold to pay for the care,which means they cannot leave anything to their children.

I wouldnt say this if the cost of private care wasnt disgustingly high. I think older people of this country that have worked hard all their lifes and never claimed a penny should have more to look forward to then selling their house to pay for ridiculously prices care homes, a large number of which do not even provide a good enough standard of care! Im sorry, I know many will disagree but this country does more to look after people coming out of prison then they do the elderly that have always looked after themselfs and never claimed or asked for anything.

SternMusik

dd101 wrote: »

I mean that people have paid their taxes to entitle them to benefits when they get older but who own their own, have to sell it to look after themselfs and cannot claim the benefits. Their homes have to be sold to pay for the care,which means they cannot leave anything to their children.

With an aging population, tax funding of care for everyone would be unaffordable unless taxes are increased significantly.

The one thing I fail to understand is why people seem to demand that one type of asset (houses) is treated differently to other types of assets (stocks, shares, cash, precious metals, ...). If someone decides against buying a house and instead put their money into a savings account, people would naturally assume they can pay for their own care. It makes no sense.

Mojisola

dd101 wrote: »

I mean that people have paid their taxes to entitle them to benefits when they get older but who own their own, have to sell it to look after themselfs and cannot claim the benefits. Their homes have to be sold to pay for the care,which means they cannot leave anything to their children.

I'm in the process of selling Dad's house to finance his care home. That's what it is - Dad's house, not mine - and he should be using the capital involved to make his last years as comfortable as possible.

Because he will be self-funding, he is entitled to benefits such as Attendance Allowance.

dd101

SternMusik wrote: »

With an aging population, tax funding of care for everyone would be unaffordable unless taxes are increased significantly.

The one thing I fail to understand is why people seem to demand that one type of asset (houses) is treated differently to other types of assets (stocks, shares, cash, precious metals, ...). If someone decides against buying a house and instead put their money into a savings account, people would naturally assume they can pay for their own care. It makes no sense.

Well for me, the upsetting thing with the "house as an assest" was that my Nans mother had left the house to her when she died. As it was such a big house and as people did back then, she lived their with her husband and children, as did my Nans sister and her husband. When their father got really ill, it meant that it had to be sold to put him in a home, the sisters had dedicated their lives to looking after him at home but it was no longer possible. The shame is that because he was still alive, my Nan couldn't officially own the house, so instead of it going to my Great Nans children (my Nan and her sister) to secure their future, it went all on the fathers care, leaving my Nan and sisters families without a home. I just think that if care was more affordable, to more people, this wouldn't be necessary.

I don't think its right to take, take, take but if someone has paid into the system all of their lives, two parents who have never been of benefits, its so sad that they die knowing they cannot leave their homes to their children. I just think its sad, that's all.

Errata

Many people who find their house has to be sold to pay for their residential care forget that the amount they can keep from the sale is probably equal to the original price of the property in the first place. Sure, they had mortgage payments to meet, but if they'd rented instead of buying the monthly rent would have possibly been greater than the monthly mortgage payment.
Over time their property may have increased in value, but all they had to do to acheive that increase was simply live in the house.

zagfles

Errata wrote: »

Many people who find their house has to be sold to pay for their residential care forget that the amount they can keep from the sale is probably equal to the original price of the property in the first place. Sure, they had mortgage payments to meet, but if they'd rented instead of buying the monthly rent would have possibly been greater than the monthly mortgage payment.
Over time their property may have increased in value, but all they had to do to acheive that increase was simply live in the house.

Yes, but so what? The increase in value isn't money that magically appears from nowhere (as some people seem to think), it's money that will be paid by the buyers of the house - ie it's a transfer from the next generation of house buyers. If the people they would like to leave their house to haven't yet bought a property, or need to move to a bigger one, there is no net gain.

I'm trying to persuade my parents to leave their house direct to their grandkids, as all their kids (inc me) already have properties and bought when prices were much lower, so why we gain from rising property prices while our kids lose?

margaretclare

Pricivius wrote: »

In the OPs's instance, where are the financial worries? Mum owns a flat so she seems pretty comfortable financially. If she moves in with her partner, she would be expected to use her finances to support them both - I'm struggling to see what's wrong with that?

In this instance, the financial worries arrive because this kind of question even needs to be asked. Maybe they're not 'worries' in the sense that you mean, but OP has been concerned about the implications and has asked this question.

IMHO we should all be able to do what we please with what remains of our lives, when we're older, have finished bringing up a family and no longer have a work life to worry about. I was also thinking of those who sometimes post on here saying that they'd lose widow's benefits if they remarry/move in with someone.

margaretclare

dd101 wrote: »

Well for me, the upsetting thing with the "house as an assest" was that my Nans mother had left the house to her when she died. As it was such a big house and as people did back then, she lived their with her husband and children, as did my Nans sister and her husband. When their father got really ill, it meant that it had to be sold to put him in a home, the sisters had dedicated their lives to looking after him at home but it was no longer possible. The shame is that because he was still alive, my Nan couldn't officially own the house, so instead of it going to my Great Nans children (my Nan and her sister) to secure their future, it went all on the fathers care, leaving my Nan and sisters families without a home. I just think that if care was more affordable, to more people, this wouldn't be necessary.

I don't think its right to take, take, take but if someone has paid into the system all of their lives, two parents who have never been of benefits, its so sad that they die knowing they cannot leave their homes to their children. I just think its sad, that's all.

I don't understand this. Why couldn't your grandmother officially own the house? If she was still living there the house couldn't have been touched. Do you mean that she was not a joint owner, that her name wasn't on the deeds although she'd lived there all those years?

letthemeatcake

I don't understand it either. If the house had been' left to her' in a will by the Great Grandmother it could not be sold when the Great Grandfather had to go into a home. It sounds more like they would have inherited the property after both the Great Grandparents died but the care home fees got their first.