Transferring second home to son

finebone

EdGasket wrote: »

No, hard working people have what they've earned taken away from them to pay for lazy scoundrels who've spent their whole life on benefits or pi**ed up everything they've earned. I am sorry to say it seems to work like that!

On exactly what evidence do you base these views?

Can I respectfully ask you to consider reading the following report:

A new churches' report (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/files/truth_and_lies_report_final.pdf), published by by the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Church of Scotland, the Methodist Church and the United Reformed Church through their Joint Public Issues Team, shows how evidence and statistics have been misused, misrepresented and manipulated to create untruths that stigmatise poor people, welfare recipients and those in receipt of benefits.

EdGasket

Ref. "On exactly what evidence do you base these views?"

On my own experience from living in my neighbourhood. There are people in my street and town on benefits (never at work), making a nuisance of themselves, getting drunk, getting stoned on and dealing drugs. I see this with my own eyes.

grey_gym_sock

and do you see, with your own eyes, the % of ppl whom the state pays to put in (often horrifically bad) care homes who are lazy slobs?

and see, with your own eyes, the % of ppl who pay with their own money to go in (much better) car homes, who are lazy slobs?

pls think b4 you type.

Pall13

benalder284 wrote: »

Currently acting as power of attorney for an elderly relative who will probably now use all her assets to pay for residential care - I am sure both she and I (who would have stood to inherit any residual estate) would rather that she had as was good quality care as we can afford even if that leaves no inheritance.

As regards whether that is fair or not is frankly irrelevant - their is little political mileage in increased taxation to pay for the additional costs that will come from demographic changes on this issue and the recent fudge over the implementation of the Dilnott Report recommendations clearly shows that nothing will change significantly any time soon. As others have said I would suggest that you just thank your lucky stars that you have funds IF you need to pay for such care and won't be left at the mercy of the state.

I have two elderly relatives who will shortly need to go into care homes. We can choose the best (and most expensive) care for them but what happens when their assets are all gone? Surely the local authority will then insist that they transfer to the cheapest provider, with all the trauma that will involve?

atush

EdGasket wrote: »

The second home is not a holiday home, it is owned by me and lived in by my son at a nominal rent.
If I keep both my main residence and my second home, what is to stop both homes being forcibly sold to pay for care home fees before I die leaving my son homeless?

Well they wouldn't forcibly sell the two at once. They'd ask for the one no longer lived in to be sold (ie yours) and would exhaust that first. Not sure you'd last long enough to eat into the other. But they can't force it to be sold if your son lives there. They'd want their money after you were gone though.

mumps

EdGasket wrote: »

The second home is not a holiday home, it is owned by me and lived in by my son at a nominal rent.
If I keep both my main residence and my second home, what is to stop both homes being forcibly sold to pay for care home fees before I die leaving my son homeless?

You probably have a pension, maybe more than one? SRP and private pension? On top of these you have rent from your son, if you need to go into a care home you might get attendance allowance and could rent out your own home. If you add the figures together would that cover care home fees?

Linton

And you (or your Attorney) could buy an immediate care annuity which in return for a lump sum payment will solve the problem of you living an unusually long time in a care home and so completely depriving your son of all his inheritance.