Giving a child a lump sum?

seven-day-weekend

egamar wrote: »

Yup.

I lied: THIS is the last from me!

And from me too.

EdInvestor

Maybe the OP will find this thread useful:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=589245

There's no doubt that this area is an absolute minefield.

carolskianne

Feels weird eve's dropping in on a disscussion going on about me and my original posting..but I have to say, you're spot on about it getting a bit sidetracked albiet for all the right reasons. Thanks for all the input, I certainly will weigh it all up in light of what has been said. I suppose the bit that annoyed me was one of the replies insinuating that we were 'volunarily depriving ourselves of assets' to avoid paying for care! I was horrified to even think that I had made it sound that way as we are the last people to do such a thing. All we want to do is be wise, make life as stress free as poss and sleep at night!!!!With long term illness you dont always have as many choices as most.

egamar

carolskianne wrote: »

suppose the bit that annoyed me was one of the replies insinuating that we were 'volunarily depriving ourselves of assets' to avoid paying for care!

I didn't read it that way at all. I read the poster as having said what seems perfectly proper to you, me and probably 98% of the population might be viewed by the local authority as 'voluntary deprivation of assets' (a technical, not moral term) in their disgraceful attempts to weasel out of providing proper long-term care for the sick.

I'm sure it's a sensitive issue for you, but I didn't read any moral judgement into the post, just sound warnings to folks who weren't aware (posts are often written knowing that they will be read by a much wider audience than the OP and so do broaden out to inform as many folks as possible while still sticking (reasonably!!) closer to the subject).

carolskianne wrote: »

I was horrified to even think that I had made it sound that way as we are the last people to do such a thing.

You didn't. No-one was thinking anything bad of you.

It wasn't "about you" in a way, it was about how some local authorities use any excuse (and dig deep to find any) to shirk their responsibilities. Don't be offended or upset in any way - the poster wasn't thinking bad of you at all - just saying "what everyone else thinks is perfectly proper to do might be used against you by the local authority".

I'm sure the poster can answer for himself if the thinks he needs to now (I don't personally think s/he has anything to "answer for" in that sense: I know a/he didn't mean to offend) I'm just answering becausel I'm up early. As are you!

carolskianne wrote: »

All we want to do is be wise, make life as stress free as poss and sleep at night!!!!With long term illness you dont always have as many choices as most.

Oh, how you are going to wince at this : all the more reason to get proper advice from a professional who's been trained to give it and insured against getting it wrong! Sorry, I had to say it.

I wish you all the best, as does everyone who posted, I think.

seven-day-weekend

I was just going to say the very same thing - that regardless of the OP's intentions, the state may deem it that they have deprived themselves of this money in order to get State financing.

OP. you REALLY need profesional help as this is not the easy situaltion you think it is. You can still do what you want, but do be aware of everything that goes with it and then you can make arrangements in necessary.

All these posts on here afaik are done in a spirit of helping. No-one is saying you shouldn't do what you propose, but just know for CERTAIN what you are getting yourselves into.

Hope it works for you.

egamar

carolskianne wrote: »

Feels weird eve's dropping in on a disscussion going on about me and my original posting...

Oh ... that's just a device so that we get one more chance at voicing our opinions without making it look at though we're continuing to nag you!

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from. We too have a son who at some point in the future we may give a large sum of money to, and we too trust him not to 'swindle' us at a later date.

But I still think it is worth taking legal advice as some things will be out of his control. What, for example, if your son divorces? Unfortunately these things happen and can't always be foreseen. His ex-wife would be entitled to half. Where would that leave you? Would he have to sell to give her her share? Or what if illness or redundancy struck and he has to downsize, because he can't afford the mortgage? What would be your position then?

Don't think it can never happen. It can, and does. It's a matter of being sensible and looking after your interests, not about not trusting your son.

Therefore, I think you should take professional advice, we will, if/when we decide to help our son out.

I completely agree with what 7DWE writes here, and I would like to second her words. I have had experience of similar in the past - in our case selling a house in 1990 (myself and late husband) at way below its market value to enable family members to buy at a price they could afford. The 'gentleman's agreement' was that younger sister would be given a deposit on her little starter home she wanted. In theory it should have worked. We had enough to buy our bungalow, elder sister and family got a home they could afford, younger sister got a little house in the area she worked in. What could go wrong?

Well, the 'gentleman's agreement' wasn't honoured. Little sister nearly lost the chance of her new-build starter home, she ended up taking on another loan in lieu of deposit. The ill-feeling caused a split between the sisters and the ramifications have rumbled on through 3 generations. It nearly caused a punch-up at her funeral when little sister died in 2002, the sort of thing you see on 'EastEnders', it was appalling.

I echo 7DWE's words 'Don't think that things can't happen - they can and they do'.

Margaret

EdInvestor

carolskianne wrote: »

I suppose the bit that annoyed me was one of the replies insinuating that we were 'volunarily depriving ourselves of assets' to avoid paying for care! I was horrified to even think that I had made it sound that way as we are the last people to do such a thing.

Sorry that you took this as personally insulting - as others have mentioned I was just trying to indicate how a council might view the matter if you appeared later seeking help with care costs.

I'm sure your intentions are entirely honourable, but if you look around the site, in here and in the 'Silver savers' and tax forums, you'll see that there are many people seeking information on how to avoid having their assets taken to pay for care and inheritance tax. Many of them have in mind strategies involving giving away assets to children, most of which don't work for the stated purpose, because both the councils and the Revenue have seen it all before and it's been banned.

But don't get me wrong; there is absolutely nothing wrong with planning in advance to minimise tax and care costs for the benefit of you and your family. It's just that some ways will work and some won't.Hence the suggestion about professional advice, as it's a lot more complex than many people think, as I guess you now realise.

Good luck with getting your situation sorted out

localhero

Married couples who do want to safeguard their home from care fees can legitimately do so through a well written Will.

Otherwise once one partner has died, it becomes all but impossible, so planning should be carried out sooner rather than later.

Therefore, I would also advise that professional advice is taken, so that all angles are covered.

egamar

localhero wrote: »

Married couples who do want to safeguard their home from care fees can legitimately do so through a well written Will.

Oooohhh ... do say more .....