To think it would benefit my 2 sons if their grandad's house didn't have to be sold in the future for care home fees

[supersec]

We have 2 sons (aged 16 and 18). Everyone knows about the dire prospects of any teenagers today ever getting on the property ladder. My sons have always been close to their paternal grandparents. Grandmother died 4 years ago after having Alzheimer's for 7 years. She ended up in a home for last 6 months as my father in law looked after her at home.

He is now 81 and has been diagnosed with dementia. We own our house outright. My husband has one brother who is married, nearly 5o with no children. He owns 2 houses outright, one which he rents out.

We save extremely hard for our future and hopefully house deposits for our sons but the outlook is very bleak from reading the papers/watching the news and I find the outlook for their future very depressing - will they be living with us until they are 40

After the diagnosis my brother in law said he thought it would be a good idea to get his dad's bank balance down as he has nearly £90,000 in the bank. He and my husband withdrew £3,000 each a few months ago with my father in law's approval But I think it is too late for this to make any difference to any possible future care needs. Even if it was reduced to under £23,000 which I understand is the threshold limit for contributing towards your care, the care home would say the house had to be sold.

I am sure my father in law would like to see his only grandchildren live in the house when he passes away, rather than it being sold for care home fees. My brother in law has no children to worry about, has a brilliant final salary pension and a very large bank balance.

I don't know why he came up with the idea to start reducing the bank balance when it will make no difference to his dad having to fund his care if the time comes. No more money has been withdrawn yet but my husband is burying his head in the sand over this and is just agreeing with his older brother.

I do not want a penny from any estate, I would just love to see our sons get a helping hand for the future but this would be via us as the will is 50/50 between my husband and his brother.

I am a very positive person and don't get depressed about much but I feel utter despair at the housing prospects for today's teenagers.

Please tell me if I am being out of order .

WooWoo you seem to think that looking after our most vulnerable somehow penalises our more fortunate.

That's not what I think.

It's not looking after the people that need it (not necessarily vulnerable) that penalises others (not necessarily fortunate). It's the double standard of paying for essential care that some people need but not paying for essential care that other people need.

We would think it was wrong if owning a home suddenly meant that you had to pay to see your GP, or pay to call an ambulance, and I don't see this as any different. People should all be treated the same by the state services in this country.

And there are plenty of homes that accept both self paying and state funded residents, so OP is not wrong when she says she could potentially have the same care whether she pays for it or not.

If it meant the difference between having very basic care and having a high standard of exceptional high quality care, I'd be happy to fund my own care home should I need it. But as my house probably won't make any difference to the standard of care I receive, I will be one of these immoral money grabbers that ensures that what I own is passed to my children.

How that is supposed to make my morals any worse than someone who has children when they know they will have to claim benefits for them, or worse than someone who chooses to rent a small property and spend money on experiences when they could afford to buy a larger property if they sacrificed holidays and nice experiences, I will never understand.

Even the so called best homes for dementia patients are not very nice places

One that accepted my GM was very nice - took good care of her and TBH by that stage is was a relief to my parents to have her there than have to deal with constant trips over to her house and the endless worry.

You may well be glad there are assets there that give you the options in the future rather than trying to fight for a funded place as my family had to do for other GF - in end he had to hurt himself, was sheer luck he didn't hurt someone else, and end up bed blocking in hospital before it was achieved.

I bought house with DH at last peak after over 10 years of saving and it was bloody hard – I don’t expect to see any inheritance so It really not jealously on my part.

I'm glad I'm not like you OP. I don't see my parents or parents in law money as mine or my children's inheritance- it's their money.

There are just some horrible people in this world just out for themselves.

Wow. Goady fucker is goady.

Probably much easier to admit to than a sense of entitlement being used to justify stealing.

But woo woo a care home becomes that persons home - they don't need their purchased home as they are being housed elsewhere, which is why if need be, it will be sold.

It's not like saying, school costs, you're a home owner so your children have to pay the LEA to attend school, but you're a renter so the LEA will use taxpayers money to educate your child. Or, you need to pay for your
Medical expenses when you broke your leg because you own a home. The persons housing needs are being met directly elsewhere.

For a person in a council house the LA are simply paying their care fees rather than the housing benefit for them
To stay in their rented house. They are responsible for paying that persons housing costs no matter where they live.

There is no comparison with a home owner.

Woowoo said - I will be one of these immoral money grabbers that ensures that what I own is passed to my children.

Well I bloody well hope you get caught........hang on, wait a minute........it will be your CHILDREN that get caught.....because they surely will.

I must admit I do think it is unfair that someone self-funding gets exactly the same accommodation as someone being paid for by the council.

Mil and fil are in the only local care home that takes dementia sufferers. It is pretty basic. A bit like a 1950s Butlins. They are paying £7K a month. Other people, with exactly the same rooms, same food, same care - are being paid for by the council. What is worse, is that self-funders actually pay more than those funded by the council as the council negotiates a bulk discount rate, so the home makes money out of people paying for themselves.

I think there needs to be a wholesale rethink on elderly care, given that the numbers are going to explode soon. I think basic, dormitory-style cottage hospitals should be reintroduced. Good, decent care - but no frills. Those with funds could pay for something more fancy. But the same homes for all - that isn't fair.

I genuinely don't understand why people think they can do stuff like this? It costs about £5k a month to keep an older person safe, fed and cared for in a decent care home. Who exactly should be funding this if not themselves? If they cannot fund it, obviously the local authority and government HAVE to step in but with people living longer and longer and requiring complex, round the clock care, self-funding HAS to be addressed.

My own parents had to go into a care home and then nursing home for about 5 years before they both died. We sold their house to fund their care and were damn lucky that they had funds to keep them in comfortable style for their twilight years.

The thought of stealing from them to fund MY DC's "inheritence" is utterly despicable.

YOU DON'T GET GET THE THE SAME CARE FOR FREE.

The local authority will pay a minimum amount to cover the cheapest care home in in the authority. To get decent care you will have to pay a top up regardless of income.

But it shouldn't need to be sold if they are only paying the equivalent of a rented room with their care fees funded for them.

Some people could fund their rent in a care home out of their pension. But that's not what happens if they have an asset. They are expected to pay for both the residential fees and the care fees, when someone else who has previously rented their home gets both paid for them. I would object less if it was only rent that people were expected to pay if they need residential care, because then at least our taxes would be paying for everyone to have care, and people were paying for their housing themselves.

But that's not what happens. Some people get given it all for nothing, and some people get left with nothing.

But free care and paid for care is like the difference between housing benefit and paying rent those who can should those who cant need help

Actually, now I think about it that is an excellent idea of mine because if people thought, "Oh, I'm going to be in a dormitory if I try to divest myself of my assets" then they wouldn't and they'd use them instead of get a more comfortable care home place.

At the moment there is no incentive to not try to get rid of your money because you end up in the same place anyway.

Also it makes sense because as people wise up to the fact that they may be living till 100 in poor health, they will be living like kings when they first retire, and then plan to fall back on the state when they've spent all their money and can't enjoy it anyway, thus creating a massive burden on future taxpayers.

I'll comment as op's who say they're off always come back.

Yabu and I find your take on this situation utterly revolting.

Oh xpost with others

Dormitory style cottage hospitals got those who can't pay.

Workhouse type institutions in other words.

LastTango, get caught doing what?

I won't be doing anything illegal. You are allowed to pass assets onto your children while you are alive. Legal tax planning methods do exist you know.

There is nothing wrong with giving your own stuff to your own children.

Isn't there some "7 year rule" though. If you "gift" your home and die before 7 years have passed, you have to pay 40% tax on it anyway. Not sure if that's right but have definitely heard something like this.

LeftyLoony - and what's wrong with that? If I go on a load of cruises, give money to the dcs, and eat out every night, and I end up in a workhouse, then so be it. I should not expect to be housed in the same place as someone who has not been profligate and is paying £kkk for their accommodation.

Op for what it's worth, when my grandads home was sold to pay for his care I was glad, because it meant he could go into a fancy home and get the best possible care. I would much rather have seen his money spent on him receiving luxury care than go towards me and my siblings housing. We are young and healthy, he is old and vulnerable. I thought it was money well spent.

OP I am sorry you are in this position. Just one thing, be careful about the cash "gifts" because if your FIL dies fairly soon they may be taxable.

It may not be fair but unfortunately that is the world we live in. My PIL live in Ireland and have taken out one of those loans which will be repaid on the sale of their house when they move out or die.

Originally they were going to leave the property to DH and me but there will be nothing left. I wanted them to leave a piece of land they still owned to my daughters but they sold that as well just for money to live off. If they hadn't they would have left it to BIL!

They also transferred a large house, other property including an historic building, cottage and grounds to elder BIL years ago to avoid inheritance taxes. His kids get everything, DH's and other siblings offspring get nothing, though other siblings married into money (unlike DH!).

PIL have to pay thousands of euros in health insurance each year for fairly basic healthcare and GP visits which are free over here. FIL has early dementia and MIL is disabled. There are no carers that come to the house, only the district nurse occasionally. Most of the money is gone. They will basically be relying on a charity place at a care-home if they get much worse.

I told my kids from a young age that we don't earn enough to be able to help them much and have encouraged them to at least carve out meaningful career paths for themselves. Of course we all want to help out our children. Your BIL sounds pretty mean but you can't force him to pay for it.

Totally agree HappyMonkey. That's exactly how I felt about my parents' care. It really shocked and disgusted me how many people were saying things like "Oh, what a shame they've had to sell their house, you won't get any money when they die now" Like all I ever wanted from DPs was their money???

But even if the council give you the same care as a private client- and of course you're right that they're mixed in the same homes- you lose choice.

A private client can view with family, chose a convenient location, chose a home where they can move in with a spouse if need be. A council client gets sent wherever there is space. That might be a considerable distance away, it might be horrible, it might be the worse place you can imagine. No choice! Why would anyone want that for their parents or indeed themselves, unless they had no choice?

Agreed Serenity we were able to choose somewhere conveniently located with beautiful grounds and lots of facilities (it even had a swimming pool). It didn't feel like an "Old Folks Home", it was more like a hydro type atmosphere with excellent carers.

The Council home we would have been allocated was alright, but it was in the middle of a dodgy housing scheme, with no off street parking and lots of vandalism.

Sorry, not read all posts

So what was the point of supersec posting? I think whoever noted "goady fecker is goady" was spot-on.

What a vile person.

The home my mother is in has both council paid and self funding in exact same rooms and care given. She pays more as self funding.