Parents sold house - how do they give us the funds

Soundgirlrocks

I would suggest that the council tax, utilities, groceries etc are split equally and perhaps an off set mortgage where the parents capital can be offset against the mortgage? This wouldn't be deprivation of assets but would allow them to contribute to the expense of the larger mortgage.

qwert_yuiop

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

It’s not a rental situation then. It’s a house share.

qwert_yuiop

Cash_Cow wrote: »

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.

And pretty nearly everyone was dead by 75.

tacticalbanjo

00ec25 wrote: »

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?

Did anyone bother to ask their wives whether they were happy to provide such a mountain of unpaid labour? Caring for those with dementia is a mammoth task and those affected by dementia can require round the clock supervision. That's not a fair task to put on anyone never mind someone with no training in how to deal with complex needs.

It's also not true that women only started working recently. Women - particularly working class women - have always worked to help provide for their families.

qwert_yuiop

tacticalbanjo wrote: »

It's also not true that women only started working recently. Women - particularly working class women - have always worked to help provide for their families.

Correct. The stay at home wife was a sign of some level of privilege.

parkrunner

tacticalbanjo wrote: »

It's also not true that women only started working recently. Women - particularly working class women - have always worked to help provide for their families.

So true, by the late sixties nearly every woman I knew worked.

trailingspouse

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?

A few points (and I'm potentially going to be in the same situation as yourselves in the near future) -

- if there is a large amount of money in the bank account, why shouldn't they pay for the daily care/respite care that they need? It's their money, they should be using it for the things they need in life, like anyone else. The benefits system is there to look after the people who can't look after themselves - and from what I gather does a pretty dismal job of it. Far better to be master of your own destiny if you possibly can be.

- as many others have said - deprivation of assets.

- presumably you can actually afford the mortgage, as otherwise you wouldn't have been able to get it?

- easy to say after the fact, but these are issues that should have been thought about before making huge decisions like selling their house and you buying a bigger house.

- of course they would like to give you a large lump sum towards your mortgage. But there are other things they need to do with their money first. If they end up not going in to care, that money will come to you in the end anyway - and if they go into care, they will need it. So be patient, and whatever is left will come to you in due course.


To people who are fondly remembering what life was like 40 years ago - I remember it too. The three day week, regular power cuts, no equal pay for work of equal value, central heating upstairs almost unheard of, having to queue at the bank during your lunch break to cash a check. Cancer was a death sentence.


As to the halcyon days when wives didn't 'work', and looked after the old folk with a smile on their face and a spring in their step... Get those rose tinted glasses off right now, it was never ever like that.



Seriously, get over it - this is 2019, it's not perfect, but we've come a long way.

General_Grant

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?

So they now live in a bigger house and have care provided from outside the family. They could have stayed in their existing home and received care provided from outside the family.

If the OP wasn't going to provide the care, why move?

Hectors_House

steampowered wrote: »

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.

Working in the care sector myself I would happily pay more tax if it were put into a more truistic/NHS approach to elderly care where the carers themselves can make a good career with a proper wage out of their work.

I would welcome care homes being taken out of the control of private hands. Just because you can share one banana between three residents it doesn’t make it right.

Back on subject can’t our government put something in place that would help us all build up a ring fenced pot of money to spend specifically on care. Or, at least a sensible cap on costs so those with children have something to leave them.

lookstraightahead

00ec25 wrote: »

your understanding of how society works is a laugh

why should I, a taxpayer, foot the bill for someone who sells their major asset and deliberately gives their money to their children in an attempt to then say they are poverty stricken and need the state to pay for them. That is the repulsive idea.

Is this any different from the tax payer paying for other things that aren't means tested? Free nursery places for example? Schools? Hospital treatment? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you per se, and I certainly don't think people who have their own houses with lots of equity have worked harder, perhaps just been luckier, but the tax payer pays for lots of things and usually the elderly have at least paid into the system,