Leaving bulk of assets to children in will rather than spouse

uffington

We've always taken the line that on death our assets (longstanding married couple with two children + grandchildren) would go wholly to the surviving partner.

There are some advantages (and some drawbacks - notably the loss of IHT exemption on transfer to spouse) to changing that in favour of the bulk of assets going to the children. Both children, and their spouses, we trust absolutely.  The biggest advantage would be the reduction in assets taken into account in assessing care home contributions. 

Nothing new here, it's doubtless very common indeed, but I'd be interested in any thoughts on pluses and minuses.

itsthelittlethings

What will happen if you need care and the council are reluctant to fund or will only fund the lowest quality?

What will happen if your children get divorced?

Martin_the_Unjust

So you want us to pay for your spouses care home?

Keep_pedalling

Reducing your assets to avoid care cost is not an advantage if you actually understand what relying on the LA for care funding entails. Is we need serious care our first choice will be live in carers something we are not going to get from the LA.

You might like to think of drawing up a will creating a immediate post death interest trust to protect you half of the house from the surviving spouse remarrying and failing to make a new will but I would certainly go no further than that.

MarzipanCrumble

I am going to be really controversial here:  don't aggresively troll me.  

TBH if you are suffering from dementia and the care is adequate rather than 5 star, does it really matter?

itsthelittlethings

MarzipanCrumble said:

I am going to be really controversial here:  don't aggresively troll me.  

TBH if you are suffering from dementia and the care is adequate rather than 5 star, does it really matter?

I wouldn’t like to see one of my parents with dementia get the lowest standard of care.

tooldle

MarzipanCrumble said:

I am going to be really controversial here:  don't aggresively troll me.  

TBH if you are suffering from dementia and the care is adequate rather than 5 star, does it really matter?

Yes it does, in my opinion. My parent died from dementia some months ago. A top notch care home can provide a lot of ‘extras’. In my parent’s case this allowed them to keep doing the things they liked, for some considerable time after admission. An example being, having a wander around the shops in the company of a staff member, taking a stroll in the park with staff, visiting the beach etc. Quality of life is as important to dementia sufferers as it is to others. As end of life approached the difficulties multiplied and my parent experienced ‘one on one’ care for most of their final year. In contrast we have a young friend (56 yrs), who now lives in a council funded care home. Our friend has yet to leave their room. The staff stick their head around the door every 30 mins or so. Every interaction is short lived as their staff to resident ratio does not allow for more. 

comeandgo

MarzipanCrumble said:

I am going to be really controversial here:  don't aggresively troll me.  

TBH if you are suffering from dementia and the care is adequate rather than 5 star, does it really matter?

Have you ever had any dealings with a dementia sufferer?  Off course it matters, especially if that person is someone you love.  

bobster2

MarzipanCrumble said:

I am going to be really controversial here:  don't aggresively troll me.  

TBH if you are suffering from dementia and the care is adequate rather than 5 star, does it really matter?

Yes - when the place is understaffed and people are consequently left in bed for extended periods they get bed sores - which are extremely painful. Agony in fact.

Even people suffering from dementia feel pain.

poseidon1

uffington said:

We've always taken the line that on death our assets (longstanding married couple with two children + grandchildren) would go wholly to the surviving partner.

There are some advantages (and some drawbacks - notably the loss of IHT exemption on transfer to spouse) to changing that in favour of the bulk of assets going to the children. Both children, and their spouses, we trust absolutely.  The biggest advantage would be the reduction in assets taken into account in assessing care home contributions. 

Nothing new here, it's doubtless very common indeed, but I'd be interested in any thoughts on pluses and minuses.

Not sure if you were making a serious comment about gifting bulk of assets to children rather than the surviving spouse on first death.

Ignoring completely  your observation that this approach would avoid care home fees potentially incurred  by the surviving spouse ( a comment clearly designed to stir up dissent ), what (if anything) did you  did you mean by  the comment ...... 'notably the loss of IHT exemption on transfer to spouse'..?.

Taken at face value, sounds as if you are wholly unaware of the concept of transferable nil rate bands which if anything enhances exemptions available to the surviving spouse on 2nd death where the estate is wholly bequeathed to them on first death. Perhaps this thread should focus on disabusing you of your misconceptions in that regard?

[Deleted User]

It is definitely not my intention to be controversial in any way - but are we saying that those who cannot afford to fund their care privately are, knowingly, being cared for in places where (re pressure sores) the care is so poor, short staffed etc, that they are knowingly being neglected? 

Surely this cannot be allowed?  Does no one monitor the care standard in such places -  or is it known that the care standard is poor/negligent a blind eye is turned if, for example, Social Services are funding the place?