Transfer of Equity?

seven-day-weekend

It can include, afaik, up to four people.

But putting your house as tenants in common with your son or daughter, just before going into care, could still be seen as depriving yourself of an asset in order to avoid care home fees.

I suppose if it is done soon enough then the longer the gap between doing this and going into care, the less it would look like it was being done for this purpose.

However, in the OP's case, it WOULD be for this purpose.....

seven-day-weekend

It might be worth pointing out that no-one makes you sell your house for care home fees.

In the unlikely event of gong into care, then if there is a person over 60 still living in the house, then its value is disregarded.

Also, what you have to do is meet the cost of the care. If this can be met without selling your house, then you can do that. There was an elderly lady over the road from me who paid for herself from her pensions,her savings, her Attendance Allowance and from renting out her bungalow. She was then able to leave the bungalow to her chosen heir.

So, the obligation is to meet the fees, not sell your home.

Georgiegirl256

So, how is this different to transfer of equity? If it still could be seen as depreciation of assets. Do people still see this as wrong, even if it's done many years before?

If this is another option, why didn't people just suggest this to the OP instead of jumping on them and being all judgemental?

lostinrates

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

So, how is this different to transfer of equity? If it still could be seen as depreciation of assets. Do people still see this as wrong, even if it's done many years before?

If this is another option, why didn't people just suggest this to the OP instead of jumping on them and being all judgemental?

The difference is, what sdw and mumps are saying is they have been able to be provident for their children WITHOUT leaving themselves unable to be self provident and take from the state (excessively) for their own needs later in life. This is lucky for them and their children, and I think most of us can agree its a lovely opportunity for their children

The vast majority of people are NOT in that position. To do such a thing in a way that leaves people unable to be self provident puts strain on public purse and reduces funds for those who have NOT had opportunity (or sense) to accrue worth to be self provident. This includes THE most vulnerable people in our society. When those of us who can afford NOT to take from the pot do we make the pot more expensive a burden for Everyone AND we leave less for those who have been unluckier, disadvantaged (and indeed, miscreants, but I suggest many of those probably have been disadvantaged at some point, either financially or in some other way).

There is a very clear difference for society. Are YOU happy to payer higher taxes not for people in genuine need but people who are playing a system? To see an increasing poverty of outlook for people whose normal families abide by the rules, or whose normal families CANNOT do this! people like non home owners. I am no socialist, far from it. But I find it somewhat ironic the insults thrown out by op are 'Tory' when what he is doing is the inverse of taking from the state according to need.

Mr_Toad

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

So, how is this different to transfer of equity? If it still could be seen as depreciation of assets. Do people still see this as wrong, even if it's done many years before?

If this is another option, why didn't people just suggest this to the OP instead of jumping on them and being all judgemental?

Because Social Services see this for what it is, a deprivation of assets.

If the OP had done this 20 years ago or when their children were born that's one thing, to do it in old age is what it is, the realisation that they might at some time need to go into care and a blatant attempt to deprive the asset from Social Services.

There's a fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion and this is a similar thing hence my comment in an earlier post that it goes beyond what is legal.

Just like the tax situation where clever accountants dream up endless legal but morally ambiguous avoidance schemes leaving the government playing catchup by changing the law.

New laws take time so when it looks like the scheme will be closed down there's already a new one for their clients to swap to, just like the cold war arms race. The clever accountants get rich, the rich stay rich and the only looser is the tax man and society.

seven-day-weekend

lostinrates wrote: »

The difference is, what sdw and mumps are saying is they have been able to be provident for their children WITHOUT leaving themselves unable to be self provident and take from the state (excessively) for their own needs later in life. This is lucky for them and their children, and I think most of us can agree its a lovely opportunity for their children

The vast majority of people are NOT in that position. To do such a thing in a way that leaves people unable to be self provident puts strain on public purse and reduces funds for those who have NOT had opportunity (or sense) to accrue worth to be self provident. This includes THE most vulnerable people in our society. When those of us who can afford NOT to take from the pot do we make the pot more expensive a burden for Everyone AND we leave less for those who have been unluckier, disadvantaged (and indeed, miscreants, but I suggest many of those probably have been disadvantaged at some point, either financially or in some other way).

There is a very clear difference for society. Are YOU happy to payer higher taxes not for people in genuine need but people who are playing a system? To see an increasing poverty of outlook for people whose normal families abide by the rules, or whose normal families CANNOT do this! people like non home owners. I am no socialist, far from it. But I find it somewhat ironic the insults thrown out by op are 'Tory' when what he is doing is the inverse of taking from the state according to need.

Whilst agreeing with most of your post.....why is it an insult to be called a Tory?:)

Georgiegirl256

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Because Social Services see this for what it is, a deprivation of assets.

If the OP had done this 20 years ago or when their children were born that's one thing, to do it in old age is what it is, the realisation that they might at some time need to go into care and a blatant attempt to deprive the asset from Social Services.

There's a fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion and this is a similar thing hence my comment in an earlier post that it goes beyond what is legal.

Just like the tax situation where clever accountants dream up endless legal but morally ambiguous avoidance schemes leaving the government playing catchup by changing the law.

New laws take time so when it looks like the scheme will be closed down there's already a new one for their clients to swap to, just like the cold war arms race. The clever accountants get rich, the rich stay rich and the only looser is the tax man and society.

I understand the bit about SS seeing it for what it is, but I'm genuinely confused about the difference between Transfer of Equity and making someone Tennants in Common?

If the OP has just retired, then hopefully it would be (might never need) many years before he'd need to go into a home, so if he was to do this now, then it might not be seen as deprecation of assets? Not saying he should do it, just trying to get my head round it.

Georgiegirl256

lostinrates wrote: »

The difference is, what sdw and mumps are saying is they have been able to be provident for their children WITHOUT leaving themselves unable to be self provident and take from the state (excessively) for their own needs later in life. This is lucky for them and their children, and I think most of us can agree its a lovely opportunity for their children
.

Yes it is.

But how do you know the OP doesn't gave other savings etc? I don't think it's been mentioned that he hadn't? You are just assuming.

lostinrates

Mr_Toad wrote: »

Because Social Services see this for what it is, a deprivation of assets.

If the OP had done this 20 years ago or when their children were born that's one thing, to do it in old age is what it is, the realisation that they might at some time need to go into care and a blatant attempt to deprive the asset from Social Services.

There's a fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion and this is a similar thing hence my comment in an earlier post that it goes beyond what is legal.

Just like the tax situation where clever accountants dream up endless legal but morally ambiguous avoidance schemes leaving the government playing catchup by changing the law.

New laws take time so when it looks like the scheme will be closed down there's already a new one for their clients to swap to, just like the cold war arms race. The clever accountants get rich, the rich stay rich and the only looser is the tax man and society.

People are very quick to complain (rightly IMO) when the wealthy and celebrated elaborately but legally avoid tax. Yet remain self provident, and don't take from the public purse. One of the outrageous of the (IMO overhyped but still important) mp expenses issue was that this was money the country could use better, OUR money.

Yet, we are often faced with these decisions in our own lives. Its far easier to critique those in situations we don't feel apply to us, but my guess is that if we knew how much evasion ( paying cash, for example, little bits of non declaration) we contributed as a nation we might find we were horrified at how much better we could do for our most vulnerable.

lostinrates

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst agreeing with most of your post.....why is it an insult to be called a Tory?:)

I am not saying lot is......OP was ......:D. People can have any ideology they like IMO. A tapestry of ideology makes for a healthier country, and I am not left standing, so its no insult to me. . My point was really op's misapplication of left and right polictics