Does this seem all right?

Biggles

Gers wrote: »

Have you read some threads? And some responses?

Hard hat needed at times...

A warning is acceptable, however there can sometimes be sustained and unwarranted flak directed towards an OP.

Sometimes, a poster will appear to be seeking to avoid care home fees by 'careful' disposing of assets. If that is how the post is construed, the facts may well be pointed our to him/her.

Posters are keen to help people Save Money, but will take issue if someone appears to want to rip off the system. I do agree that they don't always get their responses right....

monkeyspanner

Uness I have misunderstood the original poster stated that the estate would be under the IHT threshold. In that circumstance gifts are irrelevant for IHT purposes unless gifts in the last 7years plus the remaining estate would be over the IHT threshold. Considering deliberate deprivation of assets the ops mother has a substantial personal pension and would probably qualify for attendance allowance if the need for a care home arose this taken with the property asset should be sufficient.

Ironic that someone who has deprived themselves of savings by never saving has their care subsidised no questions asked but someone who has saved out of their taxed income and probably paid tax on the income from those savings should then have their motives for disposing of their savings examined just because they are old. Obviously deferred enjoyment is not an acceptable way of life, but live for the moment has full Social Services approval.

itsanne

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Uness I have misunderstood the original poster stated that the estate would be under the IHT threshold. In that circumstance gifts are irrelevant for IHT purposes unless gifts in the last 7years plus the remaining estate would be over the IHT threshold. Considering deliberate deprivation of assets the ops mother has a substantial personal pension and would probably qualify for attendance allowance if the need for a care home arose this taken with the property asset should be sufficient.

That is exactly what I thought.

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Ironic that someone who has deprived themselves of savings by never saving has their care subsidised no questions asked but someone who has saved out of their taxed income and probably paid tax on the income from those savings should then have their motives for disposing of their savings examined just because they are old. Obviously deferred enjoyment is not an acceptable way of life, but live for the moment has full Social Services approval.

This is exactly my mother's view!

I want to make sure that we do everything "correctly", but I do think the system is wrong. Only some people require residential care, so some people are unable to give/pass on what they have earned whereas the majority can. If all were taxed, then all would be in the same position in their old age.