Transfer of Equity?

seven-day-weekend

I do understand how the OP feels and indeed felt it myself for ages and am so glad we were finally in a position to help our son whilst not compromising our own future. However, there is no way round giving assets away really, if the powers that be decide to class it as deprivation of assets.

The parents could give their some money now, maybe by doing equity release on the house, if that is what they want (I assume they are not on means-tested Benefits). As long as they have no reason to believe that either of them will need care in the future and the intent is to help their son, NOT avoid care home fees, then that should be OK. If they DO end up in care, the house would still be there to provide some funding even after the loan is paid back. Just means the son will have money now instead of a house later.

Mr_Toad

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Which is exactly what I'm saying. To transfer assets across to say your partner or your children is perfectly legal. It's more complicated than say in the case of a divorce etc, but there are ways and means.

What the OP needs to do is to see a solicitor who can give him the best advice, and they can explain the ins and outs, and explain the pit falls of it. None of us on here can really advise fully.

You're absolutely right but the problem will always go beyond what is legal.

We are an aging population that is also compounded by the fact that we are living longer too.

Having recently taken an early retirement at 55 I fully expect to be retired for as many years as I worked. This retirement and the ongoing healthcare has to be funded, I'm fortunate to have an excellent pension, the reason I could retire at 55. During my retirement I will have access to NHS care and all the other services available to us in the UK.

It used to be that people retired and many didn't live long to enjoy it. I believe that our general longevity was a contributing factor to the pension crisis. Pension actuaries calculated the average time someone would draw a pension and pension benefits were based on those figures. People started living longer and pension funds found themselves paying out a lot more than they could afford and ended up in crisis.

The problem for any government lies in the shift in people retiring to those still in work paying the level of taxes required to support the country.

It's rather like the cold war arms race, the politicians would dearly like to cap fees for care but the reality is they can't afford to.

People will always want to avoid paying any more than they need to and transferring assets is one way to do it, however, councils are now going back further and further and challenging this as deprivation of assets. As soon as asset transfer becomes common practice I'm sure the law will change and people will have to find other, more convoluted, ways of moving their assets.

Perhaps in the future we will see new types of mortgage where children have an interest in the house from day one. Or rather than buying the house yourself you set up some sort of family business that owns the house, who knows.

News laws will be required because there will always be people who think that guidelines, rules and even the law applies to everyone else but not them.

Our new longevity is one of the greatest benefits of our society, it can come as no surprise that society expects something in return and that something is that people should work longer and retire later. That has started with the increase in age before getting the state pension and pension schemes that require many more years paying in before they will pay out a livable pension.

Pensions like mine are rapidly becoming a thing of the past and I count myself very fortunate to be able to retire and not have to work into my 70s. I am then envy of my friends who would love to be in my position but find themselves having to work for at least anther 10 years, possibly longer.

Georgiegirl256

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Perhaps in the future we will see new types of mortgage where children have an interest in the house from day one. Or rather than buying the house yourself you set up some sort of family business that owns the house, who knows.

I could see something like that happening too.

Enjoy your retirement Mr_Toad! :beer:

Mr_Toad

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I could see something like that happening too.

Enjoy your retirement Mr_Toad! :beer:

Thank you, I am.

It will be a year next month and I'm still getting used to it. I got a call from the girlfriend on Monday at lunchtime saying she was finishing work early and can we go to the boat, she doesn't work Tuesday's or Wednesday's.

My initial reaction was hell yes but then part of me said "You can't do that on a school night." I had to give myself a good talking to and remind myself that I can do what I want, when I want now I'm retired.

We'll have to go home tonight as she's got work tomorrow.

mumps

Person_one wrote: »

Inheritance isn't what it used to be, we're living a lot longer and people don't generally leave behind young adults who are just starting out in the world.

If my grandparents in their eighties were to die tomorrow, they'd be leaving behind children in their fifties and sixties, grandchildren in their twenties and thirties and a few great grandchildren.

Their middle aged children don't need their 'inheritance' to get a good start, or to provide them with a home. Like most people who inherit these days, it would be a bonus lump sum, probably spent on holidays, work on the house or a new car.

It madness for elderly people to be trying to fiddle the system and depriving themselves of luxuries and the best possible care they cab find (should they need it) in order to provide a nice little windfall for somebody who has most likely been financially independent for decades anyway.

My grands are off on another long haul foreign holiday next week, I hope they go on many more!

I don't advocate people fiddling the system or depriving themselves. I just think some people can pass things on without a problem, SDW and myself, but some people can't and it doesn't hurt to try to understand how they feel without them getting attacked. Explaining things to people is much more effective.

mumps

Isn't there something with owning your house as tenants in common? You can each leave your half to someone which means you are more likely to be able to pass on at least half the value? I am sure someone knows all the ins and outs. I heard this has become more popular in recent years, joint tenants was more common although when we got our first mortgage 40 years ago our solicitor advised us to do it but I can't remember why he said it was better. We have always owned as tenants in common but I don't think at 19 I was terribly worried about passing the house on to my son who was one at the time.

Mr_Toad

mumps wrote: »

Isn't there something with owning your house as tenants in common? You can each leave your half to someone which means you are more likely to be able to pass on at least half the value? I am sure someone knows all the ins and outs. I heard this has become more popular in recent years, joint tenants was more common although when we got our first mortgage 40 years ago our solicitor advised us to do it but I can't remember why he said it was better. We have always owned as tenants in common but I don't think at 19 I was terribly worried about passing the house on to my son who was one at the time.

Yes. As joint tenants you each own all the house so when one partner dies there is no transfer as such as the surviving partner already owns the house and you can't leave a part of the house to anyone.

As tenants in common you each own 50% of the house and on death can leave your share to anyone you choose.

Georgiegirl256

mumps wrote: »

Isn't there something with owning your house as tenants in common? You can each leave your half to someone which means you are more likely to be able to pass on at least half the value? I am sure someone knows all the ins and outs. I heard this has become more popular in recent years, joint tenants was more common although when we got our first mortgage 40 years ago our solicitor advised us to do it but I can't remember why he said it was better. We have always owned as tenants in common but I don't think at 19 I was terribly worried about passing the house on to my son who was one at the time.

This is maybe what I'm thinking about? Can it include more than two people? I'm sure I know someone who's done this with their daughter.

Mr_Toad

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

This is maybe what I'm thinking about? Can it include more than two people? I'm sure I know someone who's done this with their daughter.

yes it can include as many as you like as long as the sum of the shares equals 100%

pollypenny

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

This is maybe what I'm thinking about? Can it include more than two people? I'm sure I know someone who's done this with their daughter.

If the fault child is subsequently divorced, or needs some sort of benefit, their proportion of the house is an asset.