Parents sold house - how do they give us the funds

Dymphna60

Sorry to be off topic but those that say ‘ care ‘ didn’t exist in ‘ the old days ‘ what are you talking about!?
My grandparents all died at home 30-50 years ago. None had dementia a. All required some help with dressing, mobilising ect for the last few WEEKS of their lives. So lucky.

40 years ago I trained as a nurse. My first ward was what was a female geriatric ward in an old Victorian asylum.
42 elderly women with severe dementia. Some could walk , some could feed themselves a few were continent .
They slept in 2 large wards , no curtains between beds . They were cared for by 1 nurse - who gave out medications did dressings ect . 2 auxiliary nurses and 1 student nurse. Washed, dressed , pads changed , fed . I sat at a table and fed 8 people at a time. The auxiliary nurses also had to change all the beds and sort personal laundry.
In that ‘hospital ‘ there was another woman’s ward the same and one mans ward .
The staff were kind but just so overwhelmed.
Acceptable care for your old age ?

martindow

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

I find this argument very dubious. Some people pay a mortgage and buy a house while others pay rent. Both are likely to have worked hard and scrimped and saved.

If people bought a house some years ago they may have paid a few tens of thousands for something that is now worth a few hundred thousand. They may well have worked hard to pay off the mortgage but they have not worked at all to increase the value. This has been a windfall caused by good fortune (for them) of house prices increasing.

Such people (I'm one of them) have been very fortunate but I can't see an obvious reason why this money should be protected for our children while other tax payers pay for any care we might need in the future. Living in the same household does not mean that you will necessarily be able to provide care for elderly parents if they have severe needs.

Meanwhile those paying rent carry on paying after those with mortgages have paid them off.

TBagpuss

LaLaH wrote: »

My in-laws have had to move in with us into a larger house my husband and I bought with a hefty mortgage as my father in law has advanced dementia and my mother in law wasn't able to cope anymore. Since buying this new property my in-laws have sold their house and the proceeds of sale have been sitting in their bank account. My father in law has carers come in daily to help my mother in law as myself and my husband still have to work full time, but because of the amount of money in the bank account, they can't claim anything towards the cost of this care and any respite care for when my mother in law needs a break from looking after him. My in-laws would like to be able to give us a large sum to pay down our mortgage as the only reason we've got such a large mortgage is because we needed a bigger house to be able to have them live with us. I'm concerned that if my father in law has to go into full time residential care we'd be stung for his care costs and have to pay back the money they gave to pay down part of our mortgage. Is there a way of being able to pay a lump off the mortgage without having implications to us further down the line?

Well, your paretns could pay you a (reasonable, market rate) rent for their accommodation with you, which would allow you to start overpaying your mortgage. If it works out at more than the rent-a-room scheme permits you will have to declare it and pay tax.

They could pay you a lump sum and you could have a decalration of trust showing that they own a % of the property - that % would be taken into account if they had to go into residential care, but the council would not seek to force a sale while eithr of your paretns was still living in the hosue (and in the eent neither of them are, you would presumably be able to either remortgage, or downsize)

I belive that equity in your home is normally disregarded for the purposes of assessing someone for benefits, but check before you act.

TBagpuss

Cash_Cow wrote: »

Its very sad the way the state interferes in such matters. IHT is a given and we have the 7 year rule for that but if parents are moving in with children based on needs of care and family bonds and the children thus having to get a bigger house surely the Council shouldn't be sniffing around later with their hands out? Hopefully the issue is diminished with time?

I find it quite repulsive personally, which is strong but there we go!

They aren't. They are expecting peopl to pay for the care they need at the time they need it. If the paretns are able to stay with family until they die, the council doesn't come into it. However, if they need more care than the family can provide, whyu should they expect to get it for free, when they are in a position to afford it?

It's a very rose-tinted view of the past to assum that things used to be better. It's true that there was a brief period when care costs were not recovered, but given that people in general live longer, that we have an ageing population it isn't affordable - it's also the case that it was only ever true for a very brief period. Historically, people were looked after by family with no support, or institutionalised and received very basic care if they were lucky.
People who are now at the point where they start to ned support and care, and have significant funds (like OPs parents) are in most cases the same people that reapred huge benefits in the past - huge house price rises, free education, etc. (noteveyone in the 'boomer' generation did, but those who have reached their 70s or 80 with signifcant assets will generally be the oneswho were able to benefit from those advantages.

Why is is unreasonable to expect them now to put something back?

Mojisola

TBagpuss wrote: »

Well, your paretns could pay you a (reasonable, market rate) rent for their accommodation with you, which would allow you to start overpaying your mortgage. If it works out at more than the rent-a-room scheme permits you will have to declare it and pay tax.

Are you sure about paying tax? Isn't this the same situation as adult children paying towards the household expenses - it's not a commercial arrangement.

Cash_Cow

Why should healthy people subsidise the illnesses of people who use the NHS when they aren't ill themselves? This is the same American capitalistic 'money first and foremost' argument and where society is heading and splintering.

The argument seems to be that some people have 'inadvertently' made money from house price inflation and that this therefore legitimises the grab for virtually all of a persons assets to pay for their care. I'd argue that due to that the kids need their inheritance even more! How the heck does a couple on a decent enough £70k pa afford a £500k 3 bed semi in Slough/Cardiff/Cambridge?

There was talk that they would cap the money taken form a person's assets to pay for care, thus making some provision for an inheritance being possible but I think that has been scrapped by the Tories. That seemed a compromise from a total wipeout?

I know I'm on an absolute loser here and that this status quo is accepted without question by many here. I understand it wont change. I also understand that state care for the elderly is subcontracted to private firms with lucrative P&L's - it is off the state radar/back and many accept that as being fully legitimate. Personally, I dislike it intensely - care homes make huge profits and I'd rather a more NHS type altruistic approach.

Also that DoA aspect is telling people what they can do with their hard earnt after tax (its not just about property). I find that VERY controlling so forgive me my view about this rather Orwellian intrusion where your local council 'owns you' and judges you and tells you what you can and cant do with your very own money and especially towards your kids. I admire those that just take all that all in their stride and think its for the best, I think!

Anyway, as I say, on a loser here but do like to vent rather than bottle it up

qwert_yuiop

Mojisola wrote: »

Are you sure about paying tax? Isn't this the same situation as adult children paying towards the household expenses - it's not a commercial arrangement.

‘Course there’s a tax liability. What would there be to stop some arrangement where your tenant, family or not, pays £1000 a week just to facilitate a tax free transfer of wealth?

steampowered

Cash_Cow wrote: »

Also that DoA aspect is telling people what they can do with their hard earnt after tax (its not just about property).

You are very welcome to pay for your care privately, in which case you can give away your assets as you please and you never need to worry about paying the local authority for care.

But if you want the local authority to provide your care, it seems reasonable to me that you should pay for it. And it also seems reasonable that you shouldn't give away your assets to avoid paying.

If social care was free at the point of use, taxes would have to go up to pay for it. Personally I think social care should be free at the point of use and I am happy to accept the tax rises that would be needed to pay for that, but others may disagree.

Mojisola

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

‘Course there’s a tax liability. What would there be to stop some arrangement where your tenant, family or not, pays £1000 a week just to facilitate a tax free transfer of wealth?

Because you'd be able to show that the bills were split between the number of adults in the household and no-one is making a profit.

Cash_Cow

Last post - promise!

I think I kick off against this so much - well the DoA council thing especially - as all I have seen in society is an increase in costs and a decrease in service. I think about 40 years ago:

Police Station in every village/town
Surgery in every village/town
Could see GP without an appointment
Hospital in most towns
Grants for further education
No £9000 fees for further education
Kids not leaving college with £35k debts on 6% compound interest
Not having to sell your house to fund your care
You could get a NHS dentist
Libraries and swimming pools in most towns
Affordable Council Tax/Rates
Decent support for disabled people
Trains were affordable

Just seems that everything is worse these days - not being glum - just what I see. Everything is done for profit and to extract the max cash out of one these days.