Parents sold house - how do they give us the funds

Mojisola

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

They sold that asset because they moved in with the previous generation. They should be able to pay the part of the mortgage that the kids had to take on in order to provide that accommodation. It is similar to going into care.

They can - they can share all the household bills, not just the mortgage.

What they can't do is hand over a lump sum in order to claim means tested benefits.

Sea_Shell

xylophone wrote: »

Other than that, the money from the house sale should be equally divided between the parents and held in their individual accounts.

You do not say how much money is involved but the "temporary high balance" protection only lasts for six months.

I was going to add this, but already mentioned.

Are we talking £100k or £500+k? They may benefit from seeing an IFA if at the higher end of equity.

00ec25

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

They sold that asset because they moved in with the previous generation. They should be able to pay the part of the mortgage that the kids had to take on in order to provide that accommodation. It is similar to going into care.

without the parents owning a share of the property all they are doing by paying the mortgage is passing their wealth down to the next generation whilst avoiding paying tax on their wealth


I agree such a living arrangement is indeed no different to them paying for their care, but that is not the question. The question can they pass money down without tax implications or then claiming off the state because they have deliberately given it to their children and have nothing to show for that expenditure themselves as they are not owners

00ec25

Cash_Cow wrote: »

Taking care of old people who have paid tax all their lives is 'repulsive'? Or is it maybe the way society has changed to make this form of elderly care a capitalistic chargeable item that is repulsive?.

OK, so how much does the care worker get paid and where does that money come from?

I too remember the old days. We cared for our parents at home. Our wives did not work so had the time to do so. Our wives did not get paid for being carers

Prices of stuff were lower, wages were lower. If "you" wanted something you saved and saved and saved until you could afford it, or you did without. You did not borrow to buy because you could not wait, you waited.

then the unions decided workers should be paid more. To cover those wages prices rose. Higher prices meant less stuff was sold, so fewer workers were needed to produce stuff, and thus workers were given the sack.
Those still in work, on their higher wages, still could not afford to buy, but now their higher wages looked great when they went for a loan with which to buy now because otherwise they would never get otherwise. Their wives were now at work because they too wanted "stuff" and wanted the money to buy it with.

Wives could no longer look after parents so wives paid carers to do that. Carers wanted the same wages as the wives were getting in work because the carers had their own wants

Or is it maybe the way society has changed to make this form of elderly care a capitalistic chargeable item that is repulsive?
In your world care is provided by people paid less than you funded on the never never of borrowing?

diggingdude

I agree with a post above, why not charge parents rent on the room to the maximum and also split bills

xylophone

In the meantime, surely they are able to contribute monthly to the household for living expenses, without it being deemed DoA??

Indeed they can.

I'd have thought that they wouldn't even need to dip into their capital to do so?

One assumes that they were formerly paying for food/utilities/council tax/maintenance etc out of income.

They could work out how much this cost and add on an amount representing rent.

They could choose to pay this as a regular amount every month and this could be used to overpay the mortgage.

Or they might choose an annual payment in advance which could be used to pay a lump sum off the mortgage.

It is just that FiL cannot give away his money to his family (or anybody else) in order to make the taxpayer fund his fees should he need to go into a care home and not be eligible for CHC funding.

Enterprise_1701C

00ec25 wrote: »

without the parents owning a share of the property all they are doing by paying the mortgage is passing their wealth down to the next generation whilst avoiding paying tax on their wealth


I agree such a living arrangement is indeed no different to them paying for their care, but that is not the question. The question can they pass money down without tax implications or then claiming off the state because they have deliberately given it to their children and have nothing to show for that expenditure themselves as they are not owners

They have already paid tax on it!

So what you are saying is that people that have scrimped and scraped all their lives, buying a house in the process, in order to pass money down to their kids should be penalised, whilst those that have either done nothing all their lives or have spent everything, possibly on drink or gambling, should be coddled?

I am sick and tired of sensible people being so heavily penalised.

onwards&upwards

Having the means to choose your own care home is definitely not ‘being penalised’.

qwert_yuiop

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

They have already paid tax on it!

So what you are saying is that people that have scrimped and scraped all their lives, buying a house in the process, in order to pass money down to their kids should be penalised, whilst those that have either done nothing all their lives or have spent everything, possibly on drink or gambling, should be coddled?

I am sick and tired of sensible people being so heavily penalised.

Those who blow all their money and save nothing contribute to the public purse through VAT and indeed the punishingly high duties on drink and fags. Those who lead dissolute lives tend not to spend very long in nursing homes or receiving pensions.
The fundamental problem ( if that’s how you see it) is that the taxpayer funded nhs is keeping people alive for much longer than even 20 years ago.

Skibunny40

Is there a sliding scale with depreciation of assests? Just wondering (for example) if parents sold house for £500k and gave children £250k, then there would still be £250k which would cover care home costs for 5 years ( roughly). Would anyone ask about the "missing" £250k, or would it only be an issue if the money ran out after 5 years? Not saying it's right or wrong, just curious about the procedure.