Would this work?

TBagpuss

Don't do it. You would be giving up your own security, putting your self in a position where you would potentially face ever-increasing rental costs on a fixed income and put yourself in a position where you could find you don't qualify for any help when you need it.
If you want to move, look for somewhere you can afford which is closer to your children or s better transport links.

If cost is a factor, your children could help out and could secure their investment in the property with a charge or formal loan.

Giving away funds is likely to be deprivation of capital which would reduce your eligibility for benefits or help with care costs should you need them.

Even if that were not the case, benefits won't necessarily cover the costs of rent, and certainly will severely restrict the choices you have and how willing landlords will be to take you on.

If the value of the your current home won't cover the cost of a property where you want to be, look at alternatives such as shared ownership, help from your children, a granny annex or even an equity release mortgage.


If your children care about you, they will prioritise your security and well being over 'protecting' a possible future inheritance. And if they only care about you as a source of funds, then why begger yourself to fed that greed?

I hope that tat isn't the case, a and that your daughter simply hasn't thought through the effect on you of what she's suggesting.

Cakeguts

If you gift money in this way to your children when you run out of money they will have to pay for your rent and any future care that you need. Do you think that your children will be able to do this or do you think they will have spent all the money you gave them?

Buzyizzy

So the general consensus is that it's perhaps not the best idea lol
Although I'm not sure about the paying for care for me as I have many clients whose children are much better off than them and they still have an allowance.

Buzyizzy

TBagpuss wrote: »

Don't do it. You would be giving up your own security, putting your self in a position where you would potentially face ever-increasing rental costs on a fixed income and put yourself in a position where you could find you don't qualify for any help when you need it.
If you want to move, look for somewhere you can afford which is closer to your children or s better transport links.

If cost is a factor, your children could help out and could secure their investment in the property with a charge or formal loan.

Giving away funds is likely to be deprivation of capital which would reduce your eligibility for benefits or help with care costs should you need them.

Even if that were not the case, benefits won't necessarily cover the costs of rent, and certainly will severely restrict the choices you have and how willing landlords will be to take you on.

If the value of the your current home won't cover the cost of a property where you want to be, look at alternatives such as shared ownership, help from your children, a granny annex or even an equity release mortgage.

If your children care about you, they will prioritise your security and well being over 'protecting' a possible future inheritance. And if they only care about you as a source of funds, then why begger yourself to fed that greed?

I hope that tat isn't the case, a and that your daughter simply hasn't thought through the effect on you of what she's suggesting.

SO won't work as I'd need to provide all the equity from my house as a deposit so that I don't have to have a mortgage, plus pay rent. I wouldn't dream of asking the children, a granny annex (?) and I am not able to have an equity release mortgage, which wouldn't solve the location problem anyway.

Buzyizzy

Kevie192 wrote: »

So, let me get this straight...

You want to 'gift' £5k per year to each of your children and then, when your money runs out, you expect the taxpayer to pick up the slack and pay for your housing?

Are you for real?

Yup, sounds a fine idea to me

Buzyizzy

Smodlet wrote: »

As all of the above. Gone are the days of halfway decent rental properties unless you are very well off and long gone are the days when you could just expect the taxpayers to bail you out because you chose to fritter away all your money.

There have been many threads on here regarding gifting money or indeed property to offspring to avoid paying tax of one kind or another. Why should the state pay for your accommodation and care when, if you held on to your current property or bought another one, you would be in a position to pay for it yourself? If that sounds harsh to you, blame the government; that is what DOC rules are designed to avoid. The world of welfare is a much less forgiving place than it was and it was never easy to begin with.

As also already mentioned, how do you know your children even want you around? They sound as if they might be interested only in your money. Will they be there when some private LL summarily throws you out? I hope so but would not want to bet on it.

Many people these days have no choice but to work until they drop just to avoid being homeless. Maybe you could consider a part time job of some kind; it might improve your social life and your prospects for buying nearer to the SE.

Er, I fully intend to carry on working, as I am atm. Stupid ridiculous hours for a pittance.

Buzyizzy

csgohan4 wrote: »

when the money dries up and you face eviction, I wonder whether your children will return the favour?????


It's all good to have intentions to live closer to your children, but they have their own lives to live, their own children e.t.c, they are no longer children but adults. Perhaps you want to move because your lonely??

Wow!! That's a bit harsh. Of course I miss them, we all get along well and enjoy each other's company. They are my children and always will be, just as my parents were always my parents, even when I was an adult with my own children. It's called family, maybe not a term you are familiar with in your life.
I quite understand them moving away, there are no prospects here, but we are all reaching points in our lives where we may well need each other more and it would be nice if we were not a day's travel to see each other. We are all agreed on this. My own job is portable, and they have both landed good jobs and are reasonably settled, so it's easiest for me to be the one to move. It's just a question of finding out the possible ways of achieving this.

Buzyizzy

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Shame on her then. And this makes your idea even worse since you have so much longer to eke out a miserable low income existence having given all your assets away.


p.s. yes and how on earth are you "approaching retirement age" if you arent even 55?

How do you know how old I am?

Buzyizzy

Hoploz wrote: »

If your money won't stretch in another part of the country have you considered a static home? Those over-sized mobile homes which are like lovely bungalows. There would be site fees to pay and little in terms of capital growth, but you could find something closer to your family for far less and it would be a secure future for yourself. Renting is madness.

A gypsy?? No thanks :rotfl:

Buzyizzy

bouicca21 wrote: »

Look at retirement flats. Often cheap(ish) but with high ongoing service charges. Important to find a popular one with queues of buyers as some can be hard to sell on.

Not eligible yet.