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 No more money has been withdrawn yet but my husband is burying his head in the sand over this and is just agreeing with his older brother.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

You're probably right that there is theroetically a way of filling the pot unreal. But I do not believe that this government (or the opposition)is capable. They're a shower of shite who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery. As it stands there isn't enough money to cover everything that people would like the government to provide. So we have to self fund a whole raft of stuff. It sucks but it's life. One viable alternative (for the people who have property to sell) is pooling family resources to live in larger multi-generational homes, and care for our elderly relatives ourselves. But most people don't want to do that.

The government could always move the retirement age to 75 would that suffice unreal?

Or alternatively they could take funds away from others who cannot and have not had a chance to help themselves, eg children, disabled etc?

I can just imagine the positive public response to higher taxation to fund this.

People like the OP need to just be grateful that they and their families have the assets to enjoy within their lifetimes. Millions don't!

Oh, and perhaps we should also be grateful that better healthcare allows us to enjoy our elder relations for longer, so that our children and grandchildren have the pleasure of getting to know them.

I realise extending life can be a double edged sword, but would you really prefer the way it used to be?

Can I just try to put an end to this myth of people who brought property being hard working scrimpers and savers forgoing holidays etc and people who have rented all their lives have chosen to do so so that they can spend all their money on champagne.

Were I grew up everybody rented because they were all TOO POOR TO BUY, they worked hard physical jobs and dreamed of the better lives home owners enjoyed. Just the same as they do today really. I knew one person growing up who owned their own home, she was also the only one with a new car and able to go on holiday.

Spring baby there are a million ways government can address tax to cover healthcare, in old and young age.

Fight the rich over it not the disabled ffs.

The likes of Amazon, the foreign property investors, the vulture businesses that are based offshore and bleed our SMEs dry. And the ordinary comfortable taxpayer who has time and time again stated in opinion polls that they would be happy for income tax to be set higher to cover care sufficiently.

I realise extending life can be a double edged sword, but would you really prefer the way it used to be?

Actually my worse nightmare is ending up in a care home not knowing my own name and wearing a nappy. An extended life is great, but only if it's spent in good health for me.

There is this mythical golden age of the state system where people actually had this 'cradle to grave' support. In reality I suspect it only affected one generation and probably only a proportion of those.

I believe that there must be better solutions out there, but (as with education, benefits - the whole system really) it requires wholesale reform and a total rethink of what we want and need government to do - and what we're prepared to pay in exchange. As it stands the system for elderly care is flawed and overstretched and there's really no sign of that changing (except maybe for the worse).

Ginnels the welfare system is being changed all the time, always has been. No wholesale reform is needed. The recent reforms outlined in the link below will make a lot of difference, people will be able to stay in their homes and the govt claw back a limited amount of money from the estate later. Not sure how limited the amount is though, didn't quite understand it.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/268683/Factsheet_6_update__tweak_.pdf

Here it is.

The irony of all this is that if OP had got her parents to gift her house to her dcs she would have to find 72000 out of her own pocket. Lolzzz

Dear me, you might as well say "we wish their grandfather would just drop dead and not require any care, as that way, we get to keep all the money. It IS unfair, in a sense, that the care is the same for everyone but, those who've maybe scrimped and saved and gone without things, in order to GET a mortgage and then PAY IT OFF must finance that same care. I agree. But, that (cat the moment) is how it is.

I encourage my mum to "spend spend spend" her little bit of cash. She won't of course because she's of that mindset where you're careful with your hard earned, so that you're NOT dependent on the State.

How about if, you care for him. In your own home? Sell both houses, buy a property which accommodates him and look after him yourself? Ah, but then, when the chap does die, you'll probably need to pay tax on his "bit"?

YABU. Sorry.

I think your fils care comes first and once he is gone, your DH and BIL get 50/50 what is left. Your son's can wait their turn till you and DH die for their inheritance. In the meantime, I would invest your time and energy into supporting your FIL and DH through this difficult time and encouraging your son's to work hard for their exams and plan ahead to take advantage of the job market. No reason why they can't support themselves if they are smart and focused. I know it's tougher these last few years but tough is not impossible. Sounds like you are expecting them to fail already.

Well, call us selfish but our family have made sure that we take care of our own. My grandparents, then parents and now us have a few million worth of assets which are signed over to the next generation when in our 40s/50s so that we can get all of the benefits available to us when needed. If extra money is needed then the family money is used. Luckily we are a very close family and can do this. We are currently caring for my grandparents. They get full benefits, pension credit guarantee etc and free social service care when needed although we do the majority of the care ourselves. However, if they did have to go into a care home then it would all be 'free'.

People are stupid for not planning their affairs in advance. We have worked hard all our lives (all higher rate tax payers). We see all these people getting something for nothing......well, they're not getting any more of our money than they have to!' It's not illegal, it's called being astute!

'Getting something for nothing.' What, like you Fizzy?

I am more worried about the prospects for my disabled SIL, as I really hope that the proceeds of the sale of PILs house will be available for her long term care. PILs are still in good health in their 70s, and SIL is still able to live independently, but I can see that they will all require expensive care later in life.

DH already spends a lot of money on equipment that SIL needs as there is only so much that the government supplies, but there will be a time where we won't be able to help so much financially.

I have no expectation that our children will inherit much, if they do, great!

Yep- perish the though that anyone should get anything for nothing, eh, fizzy?

Op I doubt you are still reading this but if you are not only is what you are doing is immoral but you are doing your children a great disservice by infantilising them.

The way I see it the job of a parent is to give your child the best skills you can for them to cope with adult life by themselves.

We hope that one day we will be able to help dd with a deposit for a house but she will have to prove herself fiscally responsible first- we would not give our hard earned savings if there was a chance that repayments wouldn't be made and the house repossessed iyswim.

If you own your house outright then you are in a better position than most to provide your dc with a good education that would allow them to be self sufficient.

I certainly will call you selfish fizzy, since you invite it - I would be thoroughly ashamed of structuring our family finances like that. I teach my children that it is right and proper that we pay more into the tax system because we are so much more fortunate than average. You do realise that this "free" care you think you are entitled to is actually being paid for by the taxes of people poorer than you? I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror with the disgust I would feel for myself if that was my plan for my last few years on this planet.

They get full benefits, pension credit guarantee etc and free social service care when needed although we do the majority of the care ourselves. However, if they did have to go into a care home then it would all be 'free'

So, basically, you're a benefit cheat and a scrounger. Despicable.

I guess Fizzy 's parents and grandparent haven't ever seen 'King Lear'.

I am under the impression that in these situations, the early handing over of assets would be examined and possibly reversed?

YABU OP and a bit vulturish, but not as U as fizzy who wins the award for insufferably smug poster of the week.

Gosh. Like shooting ducks in a barrel having a pop at pensioners who have no chance to turn back the clock and re-arrange their affairs. Honestly, that kind of self satisfaction is just inhuman.

Fizzys family sounds sensible to me.

They pay tax, and they look after their own family, which is where their first loyalties and priorities lie.

I take it that everyone who finds it so disgusting that a family would make provision for future generations at the same time as claiming what they are entitled to sends a cheque off to HMRC every month instead of buying treats for their children, or saving for a holiday, or buying new cloths they don't especially need? Because clearly, no one should do what they like with tje or own disposable income, it should all go to the government for them to spend on MPs expenses benefits for other families to make choices they can't afford right?

WooWoo - that's not the issue at all. It's people who remove assets from their family specifically so they can get 'free' social care in old age. This care isn't free. While these families pass their money around, this care is being paid by someone else. And more often than not it'll be by people who don't have the luxury of being given something for nothing by family (most don't). And it's the people who bleat on about never having gotten any benefits or say they have been higher rate tax payers that are then perfectly happy to take tens of thousands - hundreds it will be in some cases - in benefits to look after their parents so they can get their hands on this money they haven't earned.

I don't begrudge people looking after their own, I don't think anyone else does. Parents help out their kids all the time with money for this and that and house deposits (well, some do, most can't afford to).

But to pretend your family is self sufficient and then treat tax like a savings scheme for old age simply isn't on. And I can't believe how incredibly thick the OP and posters like her are coming across.

I think there is a middle ground with the new system which means that there is a limit on the amount paid per person.

Wealth in assets is covered by Capital gains tax anyway. If my Mum gifted her property to me she would have to pay a large sum of CGT, then if she died within 7 years inheritance tax would also need paying on top.

Under the new rules the LA pays only for basic care and special care but not for add ons. I think this is fair as even the wealthy deserve healthcare and they have paid for it anyway, like any other NHS care.

Thecuntureshow, I get that, I really do.

But there's a massive doube, standard going on which leads me to feel like if you can't beat them you may as well join them.

You only have to look on here to see how many people use tax credits to have children they can't afford. There are loads of threads with people asking for advice about child tax credits, even before they've had children, and plenty of people are more than willing to share advice about what people can claim. I don't see it as any different.

People are happy to take tens of thousands in benefits to look after their children so they can get their hands on money they haven't earned, and they justify it by saying they pay tax and they are entitled to it, which they are as long as they play by the rules set by the government. What families like Fuzzys are doing is no different, except in that they have probably contributed more in the first place.

It seems that it's ok for some people to arrange what they do with their lives according to what they can claim from the state, but as soon as we are talking about the elderly instead of working age people's children, it becomes immoral.

My view would be different if I felt that we live in a fair society where everyone is considered equally by the government instead of only those that are on low wages or who have no income of their own. But I don't.