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 No more money has been withdrawn yet but my husband is burying his head in the sand over this and is just agreeing with his older brother.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 .

That is deprivation of assets, and that particular loophole closed years ago.

I bloody hope not! I came into a very generous inheritance from a still living relative 5 years ago. It enabled me to get a foot on the property market.

Relative 'gifted' me the money and it was all done through solicitors.

So, when do you decide to give your money away? When you're 60, 65, 70? Either way, you may get away with it but you're still immoral and trust me, your LA will try to make it stick if they can.

WooWoo Downsizing is normal and no one is asking you to save your pennies, just not purposely hide them.

Indigo18
I know you have a lot on your plate but I think you should appeal this decision. The criteria for continuing health care can be downloaded on the internet. My mother's condition was similar to your's except that she could take solid food, so slightly better.
She was assessed as eligible for continuing health care.
I understand that there have been a lot of successful appeals from people who were not appropriately assessed.
We did not request this assessment-it happened automatically when she was due to be discharged from hospital

why is it suddenly immoral to give your money away?

why is it suddenly immoral to give your money away?

Because you should be a willing and cheerful slave to the state.

Because you shouldn't expect other people to pay for things for you when you could afford to pay for them yourself?

well i'm not hanging onto my money just in case one day i need nursing home care. what a pointless thing to do.

HappyMonkey, I agree with you in theory, but as long as people are treated so unequally and unfairly by the government people have to put themselves and their own families first.

If by the time I'm old we no longer have a welfare state that pays for people to give up work to have children they can't afford, if we stop paying MPs to put whatever they want behind the bar, we stop paying for illegal wars, and we stop paying money to countries that have enough money to sort their own problems, then in might rethink my position.

Until then, I will pay the tax I reasonably owe and no more.

drudgetrudy thanks for your concern. We downloaded the guidance and went to the meeting confident that we had a case, but were told that we had overestimated Mum's level of need. If we refused to arrange for her to go into a home and pay, she was to be put temporarily into a council run home and we were left in no doubt that the 'only place available' was about as far away as possible from where Mum and my sister live, and was 'basic'. We were told she did not need 'nursing', but 'social care'. Beggars belief really. Neither parent had had hospital treatment in their lives, Dad lived to over 100 and had no medical intervention in his old age until 7 weeks before he died. They paid in all their lives and claimed nothing.

See I just don't see putting money aside for my old age as pointless, the point of it is to be comfortable and secure and not rely I'm relatives or the state to pay for me. If I happen to die before I need it then so be it, at that point it will become inheritance.

Oh, I forgot to say they both worked long past retirement age; my mother nursed elderly people in their own homes after she stopped hospital work. By the time she stopped the 'elderly' folk were younger than she was. Dad also worked into his 80s.

Could you family sort out the care for the grandfather? The grandsons are also of an age where they could take on a good chunk of care.

I will be putting money aside for my old age. Just not enough to pay for years of high grade residential care. I'd rather spend it while I can enjoy it, and help my children when they are still young enough to benefit as much as possible.

I would be happy enough to save it and allow it to become inheritance, but not with the level of inheritance tax that I would have to pay. If inheritance tax wasn't so extortionate, or it was paid at a lower rate by each of the people that would inherit rather than being paid on the whole estate so that my own children don't get a look in before the government have taken as much as they want, then my money would be much more likely to stay in place to be spent on care if needs be.

I agree funpug, I have this argument with my parents regularly. They keep wanting to give me money "so the tax man won't get his hands on it when we die", I keep saying no, all your money will go on the most lavish care home money can buy :) I don't want a penny of it I just don't want to end up wiping their bums when they're too old to do it themselves!

It is only relatively recently that people have been obliged to pay for care, I am amazed that in such a sort time it's become immoral to fail to save for the care that in theory you have already paid tax for all your life.

See I know I sound like a right old curmudgeon with this, but don't we have a massively ageing population now compared to how it used to be? I sort of think that my tax pays for the police, nhs, fire service, schools, roads, refuse collection etc, but I don't imagine that it pays for all my food, heating, accommodation and nursing care when I hit old age. I presume that I will have a responsibility to pay for those things myself.

I know that some people will never earn enough to be able to save, but those that have or who have made loads of money through the property boom, I don't see why it shouldn't go towards their housing and living costs when they're elderly.

Otherwise surely if everyone who has money gives it away before they get old so the state has to fund them then taxes will just go up for all the younger people anyway?? In which case we aren't doing our children a massive favour we're saddling them with a load more taxation and debt.

"it isnt deprivation of assets if you live long enough afterwards without going into care
i will also get rid of most of my money and assets when i retire."

yes, it is. I am guessing that you have heard about the 7 year rule.........which became obsolete quite a few years back.

deprivation of assets is deprivation of assets, it doesn't matter when you do it.

and even assuming that it worked - where do people think the money to pay for care is going to come from?

but that is what pensions are, TheHappyMonkey
they pay for food etc

i would be so depressed if my kids wanted me to keep my money to pay for 'the best care home money can buy'

i suppose we just go by what we see. my grandad was in a 5 private care home i wouldnt have left a dog in, but just for 6 months, my grandmother used up all her savings and was then funded for the next twenty years* by the council but she was in an amazing council run home. the staff were brilliant.
we couldn't have paid for 20 years for my grandad. at say 1000/week, how long could any of us stay? but it also was a massive rip off and just concentrated on looking good while the families were there. staff were awful.
the rest of my family have stayed at home and died either very young or very old

i am hoping we have something like dignitas tbh. i would save some money for that.

nothing about seven years (although that is the situation for inheritance tax)

"The timing of the disposal should be taken into account when considering the purpose of the disposal. It would be unreasonable to decide that a resident had disposed of an asset in order to reduce his charge for accommodation when the disposal took place at a time when he was fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for a move to residential accommodation."

So you expect me to pay taxes so your father doesn't have to pay for where he lives so that your sons can inherit a house.

Exactly how is that fair?

i am hoping we have something like dignitas

I think this thread highlights some of the concerns about Dignitas and the potential for elderly relatives to be talked round to a decision that's not wholly theirs.

If the tax collected over the past decades hasn't been enough to cover peoples care in old age, surely the answer to the problem lies in charging higher taxes, not a haphazard clawing back of money at the last minute in the hope that some people can pay their way?

This is just another example of the governments failure to have policies that go on any further than four years.

Deprivation of assets. Bit pot and kettle...

Headinhands- I was thinking that last night. I have always said that it was ridiculous to think that might happen in any but obviously abusive, criminal cases, but I am suddenly not so sure. Very sad.