When Is Your Own, Not Your Own?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2466361/Councils-spy-parents-sign-house-children-Blitz-families-avoid-care-home-fees.html

Surely when it is your own property you should be able to do with it as you like?

What next will councils check up on any valuable items such as paintings jewellery etc that one gives over to their children?

[woofgang]

prudie, while care home fees are expensive, when you break them down into 24/7 care, heating food, and so on, I don't think you can, in the main, call it exorbitant.

[friedgreentomato]

Ah Baz just as I always suspected!

[sandyRoe]

Why should we the taxpayers fork out for someones retirement costs while they've hidden away, or given away, assets that could have been sold to pay for it?

[Prudie]

I'd feel far more comfortable as a taxpayer forking out to help elderly people have a comfortable retirement without having to lose everything they've worked for than to help out people who never work and have endless kids. And I'm not saying benefits are not deserving in many cases.

[FredPuli43]

If I know I will have a debt, whatever it is, business or personal and, in order to avoid, it, I dispose of any asset, such as a house, the Court will say that I have made a disposition to avoid creditors and set the transaction aside.

This seems pretty close to that doctrine. The people who give their houses away are doing so to avoid a debt or to avoid a debt being enforceable; the transaction is for that purpose.

[sandyRoe]

We wouldn't be funding a comfortable retirement for an elderly person. In a roundabout was we'd be paying to help the recipient of the 'gift' enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle.

[bazwillrun]

"Ah Baz just as I always suspected! "

good for you take a pat on the back

I do what i think is best for me and my family financially , materialy etc for the present and as much as possible for the future.

what other people do and how is up to them, if doing this is legal then i really dont care.

If it needs to be done in my family and it benefits us then it will be done.

[Gromit]

Baz, I not sure you read the linked story.

// But councils now employ ‘avoidance inspectors’ to probe a family’s financial affairs if they suspect they tried to shelter their home from the council care calculation. This is known as ‘deliberate deprivation’, and the inspectors have legal powers to go after suspects. //

When these people fill in the form they have to sign it confirming their answers are the truth. The council's job before they hand over huge amounts of taxpayers money is to check the forms.

[bazwillrun]

If what they do is legal fine, if they do something illegal then they are open to whatever punishment the law says.

[bazwillrun]

to my previous post.

I said in an earlier reply there are other ways to "transfer" propertys that a decent advisor would be well aware of and the council wouldnt have a leg to stand as to the reasons for the transfer and certainly couldnt force the sale of.

[Prudie]

Sandy that's a whole different question about what we think about inheritance and leaving money to offspring - a culture practised throughout the human race. I know there are diverse views on that.

[anotheoldgit]

Sqad

/// Why should I, pay my taxes to support householders that want to sign over their home so that their children get their inheritance and I and many other taxpayers pay for the parents retirement? ///

I don't know your circumstances but it would seem that you do not own your own home, and having no assets you won't think twice about letting the tax payer pay for your residence in a care home if the need arises.

So why should someone that has gone short over their working life so as to buy one's home only for it to be given over to the government in their old age?

If some can receive free care why cannot others?

[anotheoldgit]

woofgang

/// The rules as they stand are clear. Benefits are designed to support people who have no resource of their own. ///

Or those who have never worked or those who have worked but have pi**ed their money up the wall, in the belief that the government will look after them in their old age.

[ClaryS]

hypothetically there are two neighbours Mary and Anne . Mary and her husband rarely worked during their lives, paid nothing into the 'system, Anne and her husband worked full-time paid their dues and saved a nice little nest egg. Mary's husband got dementia and had to go into a home, his fees all paid for by the council as they had no savings and rented their home. Anne's husband got dementia, Each month £4000 came out of their savings for fees. When that was gone Anne had to sell her house to pay to keep him in the home he's been in for the past 2 years. Is this fair? NO! So by signing over your house to children who will already be getting it when you die, and doing it legally, is making for a level playing field. Nursing home care should be Free!

[237SJ]

When my Gran sold her house, the whole of the equity went into the pockets of a family who owned the nursing home where she lived for 15 years. There was nothing left. It does seem wrong that people can dispose of their assets when others have to pay but I agree - care should be free. The other way of disposing of the asset is to will the house to your offspring whilst allowing the spouse to still live there after your death. That`s one loophole that will be impossible to close.

[anotheoldgit]

Oh the Left's built in jealousy over a person daring to acquire some assets over their lifetime, yes they are all in favour of a welfare state, just as long as the benefits from it looks after them.

But just to make it clear so as no one gets confused over the side-tracking I am not talking here about tax avoidance or even giving over thousands upon thousands or even millions as in this case;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2466207/Tony-Cherie-Blair-set-1million-profit-house-son-Euan-just-3-years.html

But one's own house that a person has scrimpted and saved so as to leave a little something to their children when they leave this world.

[Sqad]

\\\But one's own house that a person has scrimpted and saved so as to leave a little something to their children when they leave this world.\\\

so that the other people, through their taxes, supports one until their dying day.

Of course there is another reason for "scrimping and saving " to buy your house and that is so that you can sell it and fund your OWN retirement.

AOG..it is a matter of philosophy......

My main concern is the financial security of mrs sqad and myself........the children come way down the league.

Clary........Mary had no choice into which Nursing home she would enter.....Ann, by selling her home could perhaps have a more "up market" home.

[ladybirder]

ClaryS, if they are all pensioners, as I am assuming they are, then Anne wouldn't have to sell their house as she would still be living in it. And this country cannot afford free nursing home care, we're broke.
Nevertheless I take your point, it isn't fair that those who make no provision for themselves get theirs paid for by the rest of us. When my mother died we eventually had to sell her house to pay her NH fees after her savings ran out. Yet a friend of mine who had got her mother to sign her house over to her about three years before she died, never paid a penny. Unlike when my mother died, the council went into every detail of my mother's finances, where my friend's local council merely asked does your mother own a property to which of course the answer was No so her fees were paid in full. No further questions asked, she didn't even have to lie! This was years ago and I'm still annoyed about it. No wonder her family are now millionaires.

[ClaryS]

ladybirder, its a sad thing when a country can't afford to look after their older generation, a generation that many lost brothers, fathers and husbands fighting for this country.

[ClaryS]

Squad, I'm sure it would be a comfort to 'Anne', her husband remaining in the nursing home of their choice -while she sold her home and had to live in a tent next to the A38 :)