Placing house in a trust

TVAS

I parent should do 2 things. Love and give your children the best education you can afford. Some can afford private, some can afford to move to an area where there are good schools, some an afford tuition, some can only afford to drag the kids to the library make sure they do their homework and support them and gee them up when they are down.
If you have done this then you do NOT need to pass on wealth because they will create their own wealth. 
Also these parents who now have wealth many went without. Nowadays kids think a foreign holiday is an essential item whereas I still see it as a luxury.  If you want to help your kids help them with their house deposit as they may needs assistance when they are younger rather than inherit a large sum in their 50s because the parents have survived until their 80s.
Macron Noted.

elsien

To the OP - People don’t pay while on section because they’re in hospital. In the same way that you would not pay while in hospital for an operation. There’s no difference in that rude to whether it’s a general hospital or a mental health unit.

117 aftercare (on discharge) would generally only apply where the accommodation is specialised and necessary to prevent a relapse. Which is not a given. I have known informal patients being discharged as homeless and having to present themselves at the council for emergency accommodation.  

Andy_L

Doesn't placing the house in a trust mean that the children, as the beneficiaries of the trust, can't sell the asset? So they could live in it or rent it out but could never get their hands on the capital.
So it makes sense for a big country estate that can make enough money for its upkeep from its land & that multiple generations can live in together but not so much for a 3-bed semi 

matt_outandabout

Can I ask what the difference is between hiding your wealth to claim state aid in old age and hiding your wealth to make a claim for state aid through the benefits system?
Morally this doesn't sit with me at all.

sevenhills

matt_outandabout said:

Can I ask what the difference is between hiding your wealth to claim state aid in old age and hiding your wealth to make a claim for state aid through the benefits system?
Morally this doesn't sit with me at all.

But if you live partly in your UK home and partly in your home in the sun, you can have bank accounts in either country or any country. So monies cannot really be found.

A millionaire will pay 100 times the amount of taxes compared to an ordinary person like myself. So perhaps their conscience is clear. So is it right to allow everyone to avoid tax?

Nebulous2

sevenhills said:

matt_outandabout said:

Can I ask what the difference is between hiding your wealth to claim state aid in old age and hiding your wealth to make a claim for state aid through the benefits system?
Morally this doesn't sit with me at all.

But if you live partly in your UK home and partly in your home in the sun, you can have bank accounts in either country or any country. So monies cannot really be found.

A millionaire will pay 100 times the amount of taxes compared to an ordinary person like myself. So perhaps their conscience is clear. So is it right to allow everyone to avoid tax?

You really have taken this thread down some very inaccurate routes. Speculating is fine - but it is dangerous if people assume you know what you are talking about.  

As far as care is concerned, the money doesn't need to be found. It just needs to have existed, from a house disposal for instance. The council then simply don't pay the fees. If your family members don't 'find' it, you don't get the care. 

Many millionaires don't pay 100 times the amount of taxes that ordinary people do. Several rich people have famously commented that they pay less tax than their cleaners. 

resk

TVAS said:

 If you want to help your kids help them with their house deposit as they may needs assistance when they are younger rather than inherit a large sum in their 50s because the parents have survived until their 80s.

This is a really good point.  Increased life expectancy means that for the most part, when people talk about "passing on wealth to their children" when they die, they are not talking about sulky teenagers, starving artists or skint students - they're talking about adults well into or past middle age, or in some cases already retired.  I'm sure we all know plenty of people who are already retired with one or more parents still going strong.  The concept that those parents should engage in morally or legally questionable financial machinations to avoid paying for some of their own living expenses, in order to pass wealth on to someone in their 40s/50s/60s, is frankly pretty ridiculous.  IMHO.

Nick9967

I think what aggravates an entire section of society in this country is the fact that, in their view, you can spend your life being frugal and saving your pot etc etc , have an issue when you're older, into care,  the state takes your pot (simplistic but you get the point) , an alternative version is you do not save your entire life , you spend and enjoy or just don't bother, have little left and when you have an issue the state has to pay for you.
There is of course the version where you cannot save , don't earn enough to have a pot etc etc that's an entirely different argument.
in order to end the issue simply add a "%" onto NI costs and fund it the same for all! that'll cause another set of arguments! 
and so it goes on!
In this country , in comparison to many many others, we do not have the same relationship with parents on the whole (not everyone of course) in either the area of moral responsibility of indeed financial.
 
 

eskbanker

Nick9967 said:

I think what aggravates an entire section of society in this country is the fact that, in their view, you can spend your life being frugal and saving your pot etc etc , have an issue when you're older, into care,  the state takes your pot (simplistic but you get the point)

I'm sure you're right that many people have that unhelpfully skewed perception but of course the state doesn't 'take your pot' at all - it simply offers funded care to those who don't have enough of a pot (unless they've deliberately engineered that situation of course) in the same way as any other means-tested benefit.

pensionpawn

xylophone said:

"Seven years" has nothing to do with "wilful deprivation of assets in order to obtain or increase a means tested benefit".

See https://www.carehome.co.uk/advice/deprivation-of-assets-to-avoid-paying-for-care-home-fees

The "seven year rule" relates to the length of time that has elapsed since a gift was made in order to have it qualify to be an exempt (from IHT) transfer.

This is true and is a common misconception. It took me ages to get this across to a well educated family member who's wife used to run a care home (so I thought they would have known).

However what can be done is to change the ownership of the house (if necessary) so that when the first parent dies their personal financial interest (share) in the family home passes, in trust, directly to the surviving children. Therefore if the surviving parent eventually incurs care home fees only 50% of the value of the family home is liable as they did not own the whole house on death of their husband / wife. The surviving parent can not be evicted from their home by any of the children.

We personally see this as the optimal solution as some (most) care home costs are being met by the family and at least 50% of the family's hard earned wealth can be passed on.