Money from house sale and how long it should last

andrewmp

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Yes. Completely hypocritical. Someone deprives themselves and the kids don't want to help them. Do the authorities just leave them up starve?

Grumpy_chap

andrewmp said:

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Yes. Completely hypocritical. Someone deprives themselves and the kids don't want to help them. Do the authorities just leave them up starve?

AIUI, if the individual is deemed to have deprived themselves of assets (DoA) then the individual is assessed for the purpose of any benefit claims as still having those assets.  
If it was not like that, it would make the whole DoA rules pointless.

sheramber

andrewmp said:

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Yes. Completely hypocritical. Someone deprives themselves and the kids don't want to help them. Do the authorities just leave them up starve?

 No, the children leave them to starve. Why should the authorities have to bail them out?

andrewmp

sheramber said:

andrewmp said:

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Yes. Completely hypocritical. Someone deprives themselves and the kids don't want to help them. Do the authorities just leave them up starve?

 No, the children leave them to starve. Why should the authorities have to bail them out?

Because we live in a civilised country. I thought maybe they wouldn't want to see people starve to death.

Grumpy_chap

andrewmp said:

sheramber said:

andrewmp said:

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Is that a real of hypothetical question?
It is not clear who has all got ill and lost their jobs in the scenario.
Given the children have taken all the assets from the parents, thus leaving the parents destitute, one would like to think that the children would step in and see to it that their parents are well cared for. 
Then again, perhaps the children were not bought up that way, after all, the children were happy to take all their parent's money even though the parents were still very young.

Yes. Completely hypocritical. Someone deprives themselves and the kids don't want to help them. Do the authorities just leave them up starve?

 No, the children leave them to starve. Why should the authorities have to bail them out?

Because we live in a civilised country. I thought maybe they wouldn't want to see people starve to death.

We do live in a civilised country and we have the social security safety net which seeks to prevent those starving to death when their situation is of no fault of their own.

Except, the scenario that is being discussed here is that the couple with sufficient means chose in their early 60's to sell their assets and gift all their money to their children.  That is the choice of the couple.  It should not then be for the social security safety net to bail them out.

andrewmp said:

What would happen in reality in such circumstances. An couple (in their early 60s)  sell their house, gift for money to their kids who all buy houses with it and then have no money left. Then they get ill and lose their jobs and need to claim benefit but they're excluded. 

Would they just have to be homeless and starve?

Erm, yes, in a nut shell.  Why should it be any different?
Why shouldn't their children, who have all their money, be the ones to ensure the parents are not homeless and starving?

born_again

andrewmp said:

Yes. Completely hypocritical. Someone deprives themselves and the kids don't want to help them. Do the authorities just leave them up starve?

Parents spend a good chunk of their life's looking after their children.
What a sad situation when the children will not return the favour. Also a very sad reflection of UK family standards 😒, compared to other countries, where the elder are looked after in many cases by extended family members. 

As the saying goes 
"You make your bed, now lie in it" is an idiom that means someone must accept the consequences of their actions, even if they are unpleasant.

andrewmp

I'm talking about rights and wrongs. Clearly the hypothetical couple were stupid and their kids are nasty.

I'm more thinking about what would happen in reality. Surely they can't just see people starve? There must surely be a system in place?

kaMelo

Who are you referring to as 'they'?

Grumpy_chap

andrewmp said:

I'm talking about rights and wrongs. Clearly the hypothetical couple were stupid and their kids are nasty.

I'm more thinking about what would happen in reality. Surely they can't just see people starve? 

On the contrary, there are specific rules in place to prevent people doing this - Deprivation of Assets or Deprivation of Capital.  It has to be like that, otherwise everyone would simply give everything way and then claim benefits.

andrewmp said:

There must surely be a system in place?

Yes, there is a system in place.  The couple can apply for means-tested benefits under the same rules as everyone else.

If the couple are found to have deliberately deprived themselves of assets / capital, then their claim will be assessed as though they still had those assets / capital.  This will apply for access to means tested benefits, social care / care home and, in some cases, the assets may still be assessed as within the Estate for IHT purposes when that time comes.

The system is quite flexible, though, for a couple with assets / capital but wishing to gain additional income, age discrimination rules mean that the couple can seek employment in the same way as everyone else.

I would have very little sympathy for the couple you keep referring to.  It was their choice to give everything away in the expectation of receiving benefits and it was their parenting that meant the children would not support them.

Spoonie_Turtle

Grumpy_chap said:

andrewmp said:

I'm talking about rights and wrongs. Clearly the hypothetical couple were stupid and their kids are nasty.

I'm more thinking about what would happen in reality. Surely they can't just see people starve? 

On the contrary, there are specific rules in place to prevent people doing this - Deprivation of Assets or Deprivation of Capital.  It has to be like that, otherwise everyone would simply give everything way and then claim benefits.

andrewmp said:

There must surely be a system in place?

Yes, there is a system in place.  The couple can apply for means-tested benefits under the same rules as everyone else.

If the couple are found to have deliberately deprived themselves of assets / capital, then their claim will be assessed as though they still had those assets / capital.  This will apply for access to means tested benefits, social care / care home and, in some cases, the assets may still be assessed as within the Estate for IHT purposes when that time comes.

The system is quite flexible, though, for a couple with assets / capital but wishing to gain additional income, age discrimination rules mean that the couple can seek employment in the same way as everyone else.

I would have very little sympathy for the couple you keep referring to.  It was their choice to give everything away in the expectation of receiving benefits and it was their parenting that meant the children would not support them.

In the specific hypothetical example given by the other commenter, they didn't know they'd become ill and lose their jobs, so it's not clear it would be treated as DoC.  It would still have been a very unwise financial decision though, especially so close to retirement age.

It's a different situation from the real situation happening in the OP which would almost certainly be viewed as DoC because they previously claimed benefits and knew they'd need to again.