What's this scheme called please

I think that trying to hide your assets so that you don't have to pay your fair share, but expect the state to do it, to me that can be fairly expressed as a "moral issue".

It's not means testing, its trying to avoid people leaving inherited wealth to their descendants and expecting someone else to support them while they are alive. Its the inheritance thing that gets me. Nobody is entitled to inherit anything.

I should stop ranting...

If you give your house to your child and continue to live there, it will be included in your estate for inheritance tax unless, after the gift, you pay your child the full market rent as if you were an unrelated tenant. If you give it to your child in an attempt to escape its inclusion in an assessment for care home fees that’s deliberate deprivation of assets whether you have been paying rent or not.

I agree with you volver. Trying to escape paying care home fees by ‘disposing of’ assets, as opposed to a couple legitimately splitting jointly owned assets between them, is sponging off those who haven’t. Immoral. Sorry Kate but I strongly disapprove and am glad local authorities are wise to these ‘schemes’.

Oh dear.

I’m just going to make sure I have the best care “my money” can buy. Luxury home for me, even if I die bankrupt. ?

my money was meant to be in bold to emphasise that it is mine.

Using your money for good quality care is a better gift to your children than dish because it gives them their lives and time.

IMHO

I will make sure I don’t live to go into a care home. No way.

dosh.

Oh dear. I might be on my way there already?

Well that would be my option too. But I’m a bit flummoxed as to how.

I’m fortunate, if you like, to get a prescription of powerful barbiturates each month for epilepsy, and also anti-depressants. I just need a bottle of Dom Perignon …! Not for a long while though I hope!

volver

I think that trying to hide your assets so that you don't have to pay your fair share, but expect the state to do it, to me that can be fairly expressed as a "moral issue".

It's not means testing, its trying to avoid people leaving inherited wealth to their descendants and expecting someone else to support them while they are alive. Its the inheritance thing that gets me. Nobody is entitled to inherit anything.

I should stop ranting...

I disagree. AFAIK that's ok on a discussion site

Lathyrus

I’m just going to make sure I have the best care “my money” can buy. Luxury home for me, even if I die bankrupt. ?

That's pretty much what we decided, but I don't blame anyone for choosing a different path. If we all had to pay into an earnings-related tax/insurance scheme it would be much fairer, as however much people preach I just can't see how it's ok for some people to 'dispose of their assets' as they go, but 'immoral' for others to do so ahead of possible care.

We are tenants in common as advised by lawyer. As we each have DC from previous marriages, thus was the best way for us.

If I have a million pounds in tbe bank and you have 20 pounds in the bank, is it OK for me to avoid paying for what I need so that my children can have the million pounds?

I just don't understand that morality, sorry.

Germanshepherdsmum

I will make sure I don’t live to go into a care home. No way.

And me…

volver

If I have a million pounds in tbe bank and you have 20 pounds in the bank, is it OK for me to avoid paying for what I need so that my children can have the million pounds?

I just don't understand that morality, sorry.

We just see it differently.

IMO if you have spent £1m(-£20), maybe on your children, and we have both paid tax on it at source, then I don't see a difference.

I doubt there is much chance of us ever agreeing, but I don't think either view is morally superior to the other.

This old chestnut....my mums done a family trust....she did it at 81, 5 years ago when she was fit and well....at 86 she's still fit and well .....my dad died at 61 from cancer...he never got his state pension ...he had worked from when he was 15....its swings and roundabouts to me....but there will always be those for and those against

Unfortunately the tax you have paid at source won’t fund your care though, will it? Care home fees are at least £1k a week. I doubt anyone on GN has ever paid that level of income tax. Therefore the care of the person with £20 in the bank will be paid for by volver with her hypothetical £1m, and current tax payers.
LOUISA, a trust set up at the age of 81 is done for only one reason - otherwise it would be dealt with in a will.

One thing that’s hardly ever mentioned, is that if you’re self funded, at least you can choose the time and place for a care home, instead of being at the mercy of invariably cash-strapped local authorities. Social workers who have to make the decision, will often (understandably) wait until family members doing their best to care are absolutely on their knees with stress and exhaustion.

When I was a frequent user of a forum for carers of people with dementia I read of several truly desperately exhausted carers, including one who told the SW that if she didn’t do something NOW, she was going to take her relative (with dementia) to A&E and leave him/her there. And she meant it. Only then did the SW act.

Germanshepherdsmum

Unfortunately the tax you have paid at source won’t fund your care though, will it? Care home fees are at least £1k a week. I doubt anyone on GN has ever paid that level of income tax. Therefore the care of the person with £20 in the bank will be paid for by volver with her hypothetical £1m, and current tax payers.
LOUISA, a trust set up at the age of 81 is done for only one reason - otherwise it would be dealt with in a will.

But if I am in the care home with my £20, I will be being paid for by taxpayers anyway.

If volver and I have both had £1m through our hands, why is it ok for one of us to spend it on children's school fees or exotic holidays and have £20 left, but not for the other to leave it to them in our will? Both of us will have disposed of our assets - I just don't understand why one way of doing it is 'moral' and the other not.

My property is a very most one and I am determined that on our death my go, five of them, will get to inherit enough money to use towards buying a house and I don’t really care if some of you think this is morally wrong. Heat I I think is morally wrong is people being homeless through high rents for even just a very modest bedsit and the low wages paid to people doing essential rial work. I have paid taxes all my life, the only benefit I ever had was child allowance, I looked after my adult disabled daughter for goodness knows how many years with very little or no help from the state, I did even get attendance allowance as I worked part time. I consider I have saved the state thousands and now I am going to help my go. So I suggest you think before you take the moral highgrounc.

I have looked into this very thoroughly with the help of a solicitor and a financial advisor and have not found any way of legally preventing my house being part of my estate for inheritance tax or care fees. I am divorced so have a single person allowance for IT of £350,000 plus £175,000 housing allowance. My bungalow alone is above that limit so my children are going to get hit with a high rate of IT unless I use up all my savings then downsize my home and spend the proceeds!

I do have most of my savings in a pension fund which I have not yet touched intending to do drawdown as I need it. This pension fund does not count as part of my estate for IT purposes on my death, it pays out directly to my heirs. So I will leave that untouched as long as possible! But it will still count for care home fees.

I’m actually planning to downsize at some point to a retirement type apartment and use the proceeds from the sale of my house to pay the high annual charges and pay for care at home if necessary.

I view my money as a buffer to pay for my increasing needs as I get older rather than as an inheritance for my children. I would rather help them out now while they are young as and when I have surplus funds.

Financial planning for the future is difficult when we don’t know how long we are going to live!

Kate, all you were asking was about 'not losing your home'. I presumed you meant that the partner left in it would not be evicted - and you have been re-assured & given information on that point.

Just as in other means-testing situations, there is no easy way to be fair to those who have, over the course of their lives, been frugal and saved, compared to those who '*!%%£$ it up a wall'.

You didn't ask this, but I always recommend looking very carefully at your home, and if you have savings, spending them on 'future proofing', so that you can stay in it for as long as possible. Doesn't always work, but can help.

Financial planning for the future is difficult when we don’t know how long we are going to live!

I agree, and even more so when other people can decide on whether your choice of how to spend your money is 'moral' or otherwise.

I doubt there is much chance of us ever agreeing, but I don't think either view is morally superior to the other.

It doesn't matter how either of us got to the monetary situation we find ourselves in. Maybe you have £20 in the bank because you spent it on wine, women and song (well you know what I mean ) Or maybe you have £20 in the bank because your life has been incredibly hard and you've done your best, but this is where you've ended up.

Maybe I have a million pounds because I have been completely frugal my whole life, or maybe I invested in Apple 40 years ago and made my fortune.

Either way, I have more money than you today and so if I need to purchase something necessary, not by choice, then I need to spend it and not expect my (non-existent ) children to get it.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. No mention of what the kids might be expecting to inherit.

Barmeyoldbat

don’t really care if some of you think this is morally wrong.

Do you think its morally wrong that my DF should have substandard care, and the State be expected to pay your expenses, so your go (?) can buy a house earlier than they might otherwise have done?

We will certainly have to disagree on that one.