Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

kidmugsy

jabba42 wrote: »

the pension fund is going to run out of money next year

The "pension fund" is mere fiction, so whether it nominally runs out of money is neither here nor there.

margaretclare

When this system was originally set up, I don't think anyone realised that life expectancy would be extended so much. I had a great-grandfather who lived past age 90 and died in 1934, but it was a rarity then. DH's grandad also lived to 90 and died in 1953, but no one else from his family, nor from mine, has ever lived to that kind of age. However, not only NHS health-care but huge improvements in living standards, have seen life expectancy increase. Nowadays people are not dying as a result of industrial diseases caused by working in polluted conditions. More centenary cards are sent out from the Queen than ever were at the start of her reign 60+ years ago.

Nevertheless some of us are living longer, are living in better conditions than those we grew up in, have had working lives and are still taxpayers. We don't just rely on the state pension system but also on pensions we paid into during our working lives. We're still saving because we don't know what our needs may be in time to come.

brendon

I think this thread needs a little balance. While it is important that the grandmother receives good care, simply ignoring the monetary issues isn't wise. Perhaps the grandmother wants her sons to inherit the house, rather than liquidate it and pay it to a care provider. I certainly would. I think asking whether there are any reasonable options which would strike a balance between maximising the care of her grandmother and providing some inheritance to her benefactors is a reasonable and innocent question to ask.

Errata

p00hsticks wrote: »

Given that the grandmother is 93, she's most likely been retired and getting a state pension for over a third of her lifetime.....

And given her age possibly bought her house for a couple of thousand.

margaretclare

kidmugsy wrote: »

The "pension fund" is mere fiction, so whether it nominally runs out of money is neither here nor there.

There isn't actually a 'fund' as such. Pensions are, and always have been, paid out of current tax income.

talexuser

Back to the original post, my mother has had to go into care and a home with virtually identical costs, and I've handled her finances through power of attorney to make sure she can stay as long as is needed, because it is the best home we could find locally.


Your mothers state pension might be around 9700 a year? Apply for attendance allowance for 24 hour care, that would be around 4200 a year. If she has no other interest or pensions that leaves around 21000 a year to top up the home costs. Say you sell the house after costs for 180000. That means you have enough top up money for 8 or 9 years of care from age 93. I don't see what there is to worry about... she should be reasonably safe to see her days out in comfort. What's left for you or your father hardly comes into it.

Glen_Clark

margaretclare wrote: »

the mention of the word 'inheritance' acts as a red rag to a bull to many people who come here.

Don't you think its morally questionable that earned income should be taxed far more heavily than unearned income (inheritance)?
Anyway this goes far beyond that. Somebody wants to put their Granny in the cheapest accommodation which is paid for by the taxpayer (many of whom can't afford one home) - so they can inherit another property they have not earned.
Then they insult everyone's intelligence by pretending they are doing it out of concern for their Granny. Wheras if the concern was genuine, they would want to spend her money on the best care she could afford.
Thats the red rag to a bull - you don't get this reaction just by the mention of inheritance.

jabba42

kidmugsy wrote: »

The "pension fund" is mere fiction, so whether it nominally runs out of money is neither here nor there.

This is not true.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2787372/The-state-pension-fund-run-cash-year-Amount-handed-future-generations-derisory-thanks-flaw-Government-s-accounts.html

ManofLeisure_2

OP, it is a sad fact of life that if anyone of us fails to prepare for the future, then the consequences have to be faced - whatever they may be.

colsten

brendon wrote: »

Perhaps the grandmother wants her sons to inherit the house, rather than liquidate it and pay it to a care provider. I certainly would. I think asking whether there are any reasonable options which would strike a balance between maximising the care of her grandmother and providing some inheritance to her benefactors is a reasonable and innocent question to ask.

The old lady is perfectly entitled to want to leave something to her heirs. However, she is not entitled to do so, herself or via her family, at the expense of the taxpayer.

Though from what has been posted by the OP, I didn't get the impression that the old lady is being asked much for her opinions and wishes. That she "had to be put into a home" because of slight dementia and some falls makes me shudder. It's good to hear that she is in "the best home possible" now, and I hope she agrees. I find it very disturbing, however, that the emphasis of the OP seems to be on securing the grandma's house for his father's inheritance.

Also, the old lady is not losing one penny - she is entitled to use all her assets for herself.