Trust wills and care home fees

That's a point of view, and as I say, I respect it. It is not my POV, however, for the reasons I have outlined. It is one of those things where there is little room for compromise, as the viewpoints are based on different perceptions of what is fair.

My last post was not about that, as I have already outlined what I think and why, but was a response to the notion that my viewpoint is so far beyond the pale that an articulate poster is unable to find permissible words to express her disagreement.

I fail to see what is 'smug' or 'I'm all right Jack' in saying that given the present care regime, it is wrong for those who can afford to pay for their care to give away their assets and rely on taxpayers who may be considerably less well off, or those who are paying full fees because they have not given away their assets, to fund them. To keep your assets to pay for your care is far from protecting any perceived status.

I try not to suggest that the words I would use to express my feelings about those whose opinion differs from mine are unprintable . It rather suggests paucity of vocabulary or an indefensible stance. I do, however, get irritated by assumptions made about others (whether on this topic or the many others on which this happens on GN).

The fact that someone has assets to pass on (usually the house they live in) does not necessarily mean that they are privileged, any more than the fact that someone does not own a house automatically means that they have lived a life of penury.

Further, believing that tax should be high enough to cover everyone's care is not a sign of a belief in unfairness or support for inequality - quite the reverse. It would mean that those who (unfairly) have not made ££££ just for sitting in their house are left with at least something to pass down, just as those who live in parts of the country where this is a given are able to do. It would give people real choices about how to spend the money they earn, without the threat of disadvantaging their children by saving for old age.

Yes, there are many people who struggle to live day to day, and are unable to save. Their plight is not addressed by making savers pay for care, though - but higher taxes could, with political will, make a difference to their lives.

I understand that those who have benefited from massive inflation in house prices (so are protected from the threat of being wiped out by care fees) are happy to let this unfairness continue, as it protects their status as among the better-off. Their point of view is valid, even though I disagree with them, and I don't feel the need to censor my thoughts about what I see as a rather smug 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.

I suspect your opinion is exactly the same as mine MOnica.

If your local authority can prove that you put your assets, house etc, in trust, with the intention of avoiding paying care fees then they can take you to court and have the trust voided, in order for the money to be used for that purpose.

You also need to remember that your LA can put you in any care home they choose, including one, well away from friends and family and where care and conditions are poor because it is cheap.

Personally, I think anyone who tries to protect their estate from paying their necessary living costs, including care fees is - well the words I would use are best not written down -

If you own a house or have large cash assets, you are among the better off in Society and if you are happy for those poorer than them to subsidise their care through their taxes, so that the house owner can leave a large sum of money to their already privileged children -well, as I said, it would be better for me not to express any opinion of them.

It’s not for me to condone or condemn. I understand A wanting to protect her assets if the alternative is paying for the same care as B when B is getting hers free though - particularly if A has saved and B has spent from similar lifetime earnings.

I agree Doodledog but that isn’t the system we have now. So do you condone A giving away their assets in order to avoid paying whilst B in the next room keeps their assets in order to pay for their care and effectively subsidises A?

Germanshepherdsmum

I don't quite understand what you say, Doodledog, in the context of this thread. The OP has something to leave behind - her house and possibly money. Are you suggesting that she should be able to give this to her daughter rather than using it to 'pay her way' if she needs care, leaving others in care who have not given away assets and the taxpayers of the day (who may have little or nothing in the way of assets through no fault of their own) to pay for her care?

Wills are totally irrelevant as they don't come into play until the testator has died.

I think that taxpayers should pay for everyone's care, and have their own care paid in their turn.

It would mean we all paid more tax, but would have less to pay out when (or if) we needed help.

Ffoxglove

mumofmadboys

Don't you think we should pay our own care home fees before we pass any money on to the next generation?

No actually I don't.
I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance.
For example my grandma paid nothing because she rented all her life, the lady in the room next to her had to seen her house how is that fair?

It's 7 years for depravation of assets.

The problem is the "dues" haven't been paid during our lifetime. We could, and some would say should, have a system that pays for care for all. But we don't.

I don't quite understand what you say, Doodledog, in the context of this thread. The OP has something to leave behind - her house and possibly money. Are you suggesting that she should be able to give this to her daughter rather than using it to 'pay her way' if she needs care, leaving others in care who have not given away assets and the taxpayers of the day (who may have little or nothing in the way of assets through no fault of their own) to pay for her care?

Wills are totally irrelevant as they don't come into play until the testator has died.

Oh, and my will is not a trust one. Our solicitor advised it, but we decided that we valued choice in old age more than money.

All the same, I get sick of hearing from people who (I assume) have enough money to leave some behind deciding on behalf of those who don't that there is a moral imperative to 'pay their way'.

mumofmadboys

Don't you think we should pay our own care home fees before we pass any money on to the next generation?

I would agree with this if the rules applied to everyone equally; but as it is, the playing field is far from level. Whilst recognising that not everyone can afford to pay for care, and that this is not necessarily indicative of not having worked hard, the following still apply:

Those who spend as they earn get free care, whilst those who save do not.

Those who get good legal advice can protect their assets whilst those who don't can not.

Those who (through no virtue of their own) live in areas where house prices rose can leave money behind them even after care fees, whilst those who (through no fault of their own) live somewhere where prices stagnated or fell are left with nothing to pass on if they go into care.

We all know life's not fair; but if someone falls on the 'wrong' side of the situations above I can understand their wanting to try to mitigate it somehow.

Same here, Teacheranne - we didn’t - thank goodness - need to involve SS for either my FiL or my mother. We certainly didn’t need anyone who didn’t know either of them, telling us what they needed in the way of care.

I have set up a trust for any money I might leave my children. It was not done to avoid paying care fees as it only applies after I have died. It was set up because my eldest son, who lives in the US, was going through a toxic divorce and I wanted to avoid his wife ( now ex) to get her hands on anything. It is also likely that he will be declared bankrupt, the family house has already been foreclosed and my son has lost his job - on going nightmare not helped by his own mis spending!

I want my younger children to decide when and how their brother gets his share ( equal shares) or they could choose not to follow my letter of intent and revoke the trust immediately and share out the inheritance - I won’t know will I? I might even change things myself if my son manages to get back control of his life.

I would never use dodgy methods to hide my assets to avoid paying care fees. My mum lives in a care home and we have been able to make the right care decisions for her without going through social services. We did not have to beg for help, undergo assessments and put up with possibly inadequate care - four brief visits a day with a career rushing in and out would not have been appropriate for someone living on their own with dementia but that’s what mum would have had to put up with. Social Services/ LA go with the cheapest care option, which is not necessarily the best one.

If we all used these tactics to avoid paying for our own care, our children would be faced with horrendous taxes to pay for it. My hard earned money is for my use, for my retirement and comfort, not for my children!

Liz46

I think you need to be careful with trusts. My aunt and uncle had one and after they died, it cost my cousin a lot of money and trouble to sort it out.

She reckons the only people who benefited were the solicitor and the bank.

Yes, a friend’s 2 dcs were left money in trust by a grandfather. It cost a bomb and took ages - evidently spun out for as long as possible by the solicitors - to wind it up.

As regards care home fees, one factor that is often overlooked is that if you do eventually need a care home (I know nobody ever wants to think of it but sometimes it’s the only practical option) then TBH being able to self fund, and to choose the time and place, is infinitely preferable to being at the tender mercies of social services who will have their own ideas about if/when it’s necessary, and of course the local authority who will be footing the bill.

Might add that councils are (understandably) typically very hot on deprivation of assets.

There are other ways but I don’t think it’s in the taxpayers’ interest for me to go into them. Suffice to say I have not taken advantage of them, nor do I intend to.

If you really do want to “Deprave” you assets you have to spend it on high living and gambling, problem is you never know how long you are going to live or wether you will ever need a care home.
Or indeed wether there is a change in the law whereby personal care is free (in theory) as in Scotland.

Best to stick within the rules

You are confusing the 7 year cut off for inheritance tax with deliberate deprivation of assets, for which there is no time limit provided the foreseeability of needing care and the intention can be proved. If they are proved then you will be assessed for care as though you still own the asset and the person receiving it is liable to pay however much you cannot.

I think your attitude is appalling. You would expect people who have not deprived themselves of assets, and the taxpayers of the day, to subsidise you so that your daughter can inherit from you. Whatever ‘dues’ you might have paid are unlikely to pay for very much care.

I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance

Effectively what you are saying is that my children as tax payers should pay your care fees so that your daughter can inherit.

on the bright side ffoxglove, having the cash from a house sale will allow you choice in what care home you might have to enter

Ffoxglove

mumofmadboys

Don't you think we should pay our own care home fees before we pass any money on to the next generation?

No actually I don't.
I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance.
For example my grandma paid nothing because she rented all her life, the lady in the room next to her had to seen her house how is that fair?

It's 7 years for depravation of assets.

Oh dear, that is very wrong ffoxglove. Deprivation of assets has no time limit

The 7 year rule is for inheritance tax only and anything given away can be reclaimed if deprivation of assets is involved

The younger generation should not be expected to pay for someone who has, or had ,assets that will pay for their own care

mumofmadboys

Don't you think we should pay our own care home fees before we pass any money on to the next generation?

No actually I don't.
I've worked hard paid my dues and this should be for her inheritance.
For example my grandma paid nothing because she rented all her life, the lady in the room next to her had to seen her house how is that fair?

It's 7 years for depravation of assets.

My SiL and BiL live in Tasmania.
They needed care had to pay up front for "x" number of years.
So had to sell thier house, pay up in advance.
I can't remember for how many years in total 15 rings a bell but if they continue to live there once that's up they get reduced costs which comes out of thier pensions plus state allowances etc.
I assume if they don't do the paid time, some money goes back into the estate.

Don't you think we should pay our own care home fees before we pass any money on to the next generation?

I think you need to be careful with trusts. My aunt and uncle had one and after they died, it cost my cousin a lot of money and trouble to sort it out.

She reckons the only people who benefited were the solicitor and the bank.