signing your house over to your children the advantages ?

[Guest]

Originally Posted by Brennanhough

We are going through this at the minute, as my grandparents have been told that they have to go into a car home at a cost of £500 each per week and they have to fund it ... and have paid taxes all there lives...

See more...

But that's 50k you expect the government to stump up I'm return for let's say 40 years of tax from them.

If they earned the UK family average of 30k that's 4k a year in tax or 160k over a lifetime, which means they have paid for 3 years of care (assuming everything else that tax pays for they got for free because someone else's taxes paid for it instead)

It's totally fair that if they have money or assets they should contribute, the other option is the don't go into a home and you look after them full time, if you did it that way I don't think the council would have any claim on the property.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by CLB_14

My aunt is currently living out her final days in a hospice at the age of 59.

We live in London, herself central London so as a result her property is over £1million (it sounds amazing, in reality it's a 4 bed detached- London prices Hey!)

She is single so her inheritance tax threshold is low. The result is her 2 boys that live with her in the house will have to sell the house to pay the tax bill, pay the reamining mortgage and medical costs, and walk away with barely enough to cover a deposit on a flat.

She was too stubborn to sign anything over sooner, and didn't realise how quickly things can change. We've been advised we can't even draw large sums of money out as it will all be looked at as tax avoidance.

In hindsight, I think she wished she had done something similar to the OP years ago, or at the very least distributed her wealth rather than leave it sitting there . For different reasons granted.

See more...

Why should she sign her house over and potentially find herself homeless?

As mentioned, if she had reserved the right to live in the house anyway then it would not have saved any IHT.

I would have thought the £730k post tax inheritance (based on a £1m sale) would be enough for a deposit on a flat even in London.

[WhereIBelong]

Originally Posted by Bridgetx

Why should she sign her house over and potentially find herself homeless?

As mentioned, if she had reserved the right to live in the house anyway then it would not have saved any IHT.

I would have thought the £730k post tax inheritance (based on a £1m sale) would be enough for a deposit on a flat even in London.

See more...

there will be the existing mortgage to pay off.

[KES]

Originally Posted by Pussycat Doll

My aunt, who is a lawyer, said years ago when my mum died, that dad should sign the house to me and be Tenants in Common. As long as it was done 7 years before the death of my dad then the state couldn't make any claim on it if he needed to go into a home. He wouldn't do it, I think he thought I'd throw him out on the street. When he did go into a home it cost us £8000 for 11 weeks, he'd be rolling in his grave if he knew how much it was costing. He died just as I was in talks with social services about selling the house to fund his care, he didn't know that either!

See more...

My mum and dad were tenants in common and were supposed to be leaving each of their share of the house to me. Although when they updated their wills, my dad wouldn’t will his share to me and gave it to my mum anyway! So he died last June and my mum is now frantic with worry that the whole lot will disappear in care home fees!

[WhereIBelong]

Originally Posted by KES

My mum and dad were tenants in common and were supposed to be leaving each of their share of the house to me. Although when they updated their wills, my dad wouldn’t will his share to me and gave it to my mum anyway! So he died last June and my mum is now frantic with worry that the whole lot will disappear in care home fees!

See more...

Did you look at a deed of variation?

[skalexander]

Originally Posted by Guest

But that's 50k you expect the government to stump up I'm return for let's say 40 years of tax from them.

If they earned the UK family average of 30k that's 4k a year in tax or 160k over a lifetime, which means they have paid for 3 years of care (assuming everything else that tax pays for they got for free because someone else's taxes paid for it instead)

It's totally fair that if they have money or assets they should contribute, the other option is the don't go into a home and you look after them full time, if you did it that way I don't think the council would have any claim on the property.

See more...

I think what cheeses people off about paying for nursing care is that there are people out there who have lived in rented accommodation all their lives, possibly even state-subsidised social housing, and who have never worked or spent every penny they ever earned. Those people will get their care for free, whereas the conscientious who have bought a home and put money aside have to sit back and watch it all disappear.

[g1970]

Originally Posted by Guest

But that's 50k you expect the government to stump up I'm return for let's say 40 years of tax from them.

If they earned the UK family average of 30k that's 4k a year in tax or 160k over a lifetime, which means they have paid for 3 years of care (assuming everything else that tax pays for they got for free because someone else's taxes paid for it instead)

It's totally fair that if they have money or assets they should contribute, the other option is the don't go into a home and you look after them full time, if you did it that way I don't think the council would have any claim on the property.

See more...

So what about someone who has never worked/paid taxes? Should they be allowed fully funded care?

I think the current system is unfair. Why should people who have worked hard or watched their money be treated any differently to someone who has never worked a day in their life?

[Guest]

Originally Posted by WhereIBelong

there will be the existing mortgage to pay off.

See more...

And if the mortgage was sufficiently big enough to wipe out the proceeds, then she didn’t have any net assets worth handing over anyway! Nor would it have been possible to handover the house as the mortgage provider would not have allowed it.

[Guest]

Originally Posted by g1970

So what about someone who has never worked/paid taxes? Should they be allowed fully funded care?

I think the current system is unfair. Why should people who have worked hard or watched their money be treated any differently to someone who has never worked a day in their life?

See more...

I don't think that's fair, both options seem unfair but in different ways.

Think of it like a hypothetical trip to Florida that the government would pay for in cases of real need (what they are I'm not sure )

It would seem wrong that someone who had never bothered to work could get it, equally it would seem wrong that someone with loads of money "loaned it" to their kids so they could get it free too.

There isn't a right answer - there's just lots of wrong ones and a system behind it that is trying to do well for people in old age but failing because people are complicated things

[EssexSue]

Originally Posted by skalexander

I think what cheeses people off about paying for nursing care is that there are people out there who have lived in rented accommodation all their lives, possibly even state-subsidised social housing, and who have never worked or spent every penny they ever earned. Those people will get their care for free, whereas the conscientious who have bought a home and put money aside have to sit back and watch it all disappear.

See more...

Yep happened in our family with my grandparents. And there were people in same care home not paying for themselves.