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 No more money has been withdrawn yet but my husband is burying his head in the sand over this and is just agreeing with his older brother.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

hoobpickypicky: The things you list are not comparable. You have a choice as to whether to buy things in sainsburys, you have a choice as to whether buy a house. You DO NOT have a choice about getting old and ill.

Some care home owners are milking it. Old age happens to all of us, it should not used as a means to making money, it should be a service.

Bassetfeet, if you're splitting that between a few of you for birthday and Christmas then that should be ok. It's something to do with continuing on as the donor did before they lost capacity.

I have found the OPG quite helpful and would suggest you fire them off a quick email them you will have something in writing to put in the file.

Would people here if they owned their homes or had savings really not start offloading it to their kids rather than run the risk of their kids not getting anything?

Would you really look at your kids and think, "I would love to help you out at some point, pass the family home to you etc - but I really must do the totally moral thing of using the home and all of my savings today my old age care?". I wonder how many here will pass on their house etc to their children to avoid this themselves.

"Never, ever take a dementia sufferer into your own home/go and care for them without very serious thought. Years of your life could pass and they march on, doubly incontinent, keeping random hours (dementia sufferers lose the concept of day and night) and needing constant care."

That's a very valid comment. And it's why housing and care for sufferers of dementia is so costly, because it's fucking hard work, it's relentless, it's distressing, it's sometimes dangerous, it's a huge responsibility - one which the OP appears not to be willing to take on herself but which she wants you and I to pay for so that her sons can have a house.

OP, is one of these sons the same DC who gave university up after a couple of months and who was lolling around doing nothing all day? Because if it is, you're not only setting him a very bad example about respect for his grandad, responsible citizenship and decent treatment of the elderly, you're also teaching him that he only needs to sit on his arse and someone will provide for him. Do you think that's wise?

Timetoask Some people need round the clock care. Even if they were at home and paying a minimum wage private carer, it would cost £151 just to employ ONE carer for ONE day. Although, a person with that high needs would need 2 carers at points in the day to undertake personal care safely.

Why don't you look after FIL then? At home?

Actually scrap that, you need to include employer's liability insurance, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity/paternity pay etc.

Thank you Wynken . Will do.

"Old age happens to all of us, it should not used as a means to making money,"

Sadly, time, it doesn't happen to all of us. But you're right on one thing. It shouldn't be used as a means to making money - which is why I object wholeheartedly to the OP using the old age of her husband's father to make money for her sons.

"Would you really look at your kids and think, "I would love to help you out at some point, pass the family home to you etc - but I really must do the totally moral thing of using the home and all of my savings today my old age care?".

Yes.

Not entirely for moral reasons but for selfish ones too. The stress, the time, the difficulty my children would have in obtaining the funding for the most basic of care and residence, in a less than ideal setting if I were in the position of the OP's FIL or the person I spoke of in my post upthread) is something I would never want to put them through.

Furthermore I would want, in this country which has a 2 tier system for those with personal savings and those without, something more than the basic level of care offered to those who are not as fortunate.

And yes, for the moral reasons too. I like to think that I'm a half decent person.

As most of you seem to be socialists can I just ask why the exact people who paid taxes for their end of life care seem to think they should have to pay for it?

** that should read if I were in the position of the OP's FIL should the OP and her family get their way and hide/spend his assets

Theodorus Perhaps because we "socialists" don't expect the State (i.e. other tax payers) to pay for everything?

I expect people to look after their families. Unless it's medically impossible...I think we should care for our own.

Poor old man. Vultures hovering around him.

My husband grew up with parents who lived on benefits. His mum is now in a safe, warm and free council home whereas my father, in advanced dementia, needs his children to weed out the carers who are safe and report the others, we have to constantly meet with people to arrange the next stage and make horrid decisions like taking away his freedom while the miserable old fat bat just sits and gets moved through the system for free. There is something wrong with that

My Mum hasn't got a house to leave me. Neither has MIL. We'll look after them if we need to. The ONLY time they'd go in a home would be if they needed medical intervention we couldn't offer.

Arse wiping, assistance with washing, eating etc...I'll do that thanks.

Haven't read all the thread but would like to point out you have to be very careful about stripping assets. Social Services will have access to his bank account and can request history going back several years. However, there is a differentiation between needing residential care and nursing care. You need to explore this more. If is nursing care I believe there is no cost attached.

This generation of elderly should be looked after. It was promised to them

Theodorous none of us paid taxes for our end of life care. Our taxes pay benefits for those claiming them, it isn't a savings scheme.

Theo Not ALL council care is safe and warm with A1 carers you know! What planet are you on!

Sorry I was confusing it with the cradle to grave promise, maybe it was another country that assured that in 1948

haven't got the funds and enjoyed yourself

You think there are people renting and choosing not to buy to enjoy theirselves. I don't know anyone in that situation. It seems to be those who can buy, do.

Theodorous I wrote a whole long paragraph about the huge costs of the care. Most people will not have paid nearly enough taxes to cover it, that is fact. It is not about being a socialist, it is about being a realist. You must be very naive to think that the LA paying for everyone's care is something that is some sort of right.

Does your husband have power of attorney? If not, I would stop withdrawing that money right away. There is a very good chance that it could be deemed that your father in law was not capable of consenting and there are obviously legal consequences re this

When I was a trainee solicitor, I worked in the private client team and there was a very unfortunate, similar situation which ultimately ended up with police involvement

Separately, your father in law - when compos mentus - decided not to gift or put in trust his home or funds etc to your DC. So why in earth so you and your DH think you should subvert the normal law of succession or his will?

I find your post absolutely distasteful in the extreme