Money / Legal advice please

Teesste said:
I think maybe Ayresome was getting mixed up with the 7 year Potentially Exempt Transfer rule which relates to Inheritance Tax rather than Care Home costs
Click to expand...
No I wasn’t getting mixed up. My point included that the person setting up the trust has to be of sound mind and body. So in the OP’s case there is no chance. However if a person sets up a trust and is then of still sound mind and body over 7 years later then they are not seen as trying to deprive their assets. If this person subsequently goes into a home then the house should not be counted as a way to finance that persons care costs.
 
I'm about to go through it too, but dont see why a parents money shouldnt be used to pay for her care? its her money, and her care.... why should the state pay for it? genuine question.
 
afcb_acklam said:
I'm about to go through it too, but dont see why a parents money shouldnt be used to pay for her care? its her money, and her care.... why should the state pay for it? genuine question.
Click to expand...
I think the answer to that is because they paid into a state healthcare system all their lives.
 
The way I see it is, if I were to get a mortgage on a house now worth a little over £100k whilst in my 20s, and paid it off over 30 years, which would probably be on the limit of about what I could afford - what exactly would be the point of doing all that, if, by the time I've paid it off I'll be nearly a pensioner and it could only be a couple of years before the state takes it off me anyway to pay for my care, despite paying taxes all my life. If I can't work towards something to leave behind for my children and family members when I'm gone, what exactly is the point?

Would it not be better to just rent instead, and put money into a savings account for them?
 
Ayresome said:
No I wasn’t getting mixed up. My point included that the person setting up the trust has to be of sound mind and body. So in the OP’s case there is no chance. However if a person sets up a trust and is then of still sound mind and body over 7 years later then they are not seen as trying to deprive their assets. If this person subsequently goes into a home then the house should not be counted as a way to finance that persons care costs.
Click to expand...
huutimoney.com

Deprivation Of Assets 7 Year Rule | Huuti

While carrying out a financial assessment, local council authorities conduct their own investigations to confirm the data provided by claimants. If they find
huutimoney.com huutimoney.com
 
I don't know if your mam has a social worker but she should have one they can help on so many things in terms of adjustments for dementia. There a few benefits and entitlements like attendance allowance and carers allowance which she should be getting. it all adds up. With my dad his pensions plus attendance allowance it was enough to pay virtually all his care home fees

In terms of the next stage of choosing a care home. My wife has worked around the care sector for years and she told some of the most expensive establishments don't actually give the best care especially further down the line with dementia. Talk to people get recommendations for homes would be my advice
 
Ayresome said:
I believe that from setting up a trust the wait is 7 years before it is seen as not trying to hide away assets and the person setting up the trust must be of sound mind and body when the trust is set up.

Along with Redwurzel's idea about the funeral in advance (great shout btw), I would also add that you can legally gift money to family members up to a total of £3000 per tax year (3k total and not each). There are a few other cash gifts such as Christmas, wedding etc which can legally be done each year also.
Click to expand...
Sorry ayresome but you are Completely wrong. Your talking iht not long term care.
 
Ayresome said:
No I wasn’t getting mixed up. My point included that the person setting up the trust has to be of sound mind and body. So in the OP’s case there is no chance. However if a person sets up a trust and is then of still sound mind and body over 7 years later then they are not seen as trying to deprive their assets. If this person subsequently goes into a home then the house should not be counted as a way to finance that persons care costs.
Click to expand...
Utterly wrong. What possible reason could any on have for doing what you suggest other than deprivingthem of an asset. Also see retaining the use of an asset under trust.
 
afcb_acklam said:
I'm about to go through it too, but dont see why a parents money shouldnt be used to pay for her care? its her money, and her care.... why should the state pay for it? genuine question.
Click to expand...
You could have two people in rooms next to each other one paying thousands a month and the other zero. Furthermore the one paying thousands has probably contributed far more in taxation over there working life. That's what irks people. Care needs to be paid for but the cost is enormous and the cut off at around 26k before it's free is way to low.
 
Osboro said:
Sorry ayresome but you are Completely wrong. Your talking iht not long term care.
Click to expand...
Ok. I will take your word for it but the link to the deprivation of assets still points out that if you were well and did not know you were ever going into a care home then putting a house into trust is legal and the council still have to prove that this was done to deprive them of selling the house to pay for a care home.
I do get your point regarding IHT but if you put your house in trust 20 years ago then can the council insist you sell it or put a charge on it for later if you then need a care home? I genuinely thought that a trust would cover this off if it was originally set up for IHT
 
Osboro said:
Utterly wrong. What possible reason could any on have for doing what you suggest other than deprivingthem of an asset. Also see retaining the use of an asset under trust.
Click to expand...
You may be correct but why is it that a property trust can be set up? Your reply would suggest that any property trust is to deprive of an asset so why is it a legal?
 
I think there should be universal social care but I also think there should be much stricter inheritance tax rules. Inheritance is the key driver of inequality.

People ALWAYS get it wrong in arguing the money they are leaving behind is them being taxed again but in reality the person leaving the money pays no tax as they have died. It is the estate itself that pays the tax which reduces what people inherit. The inheritors have done nothing to earn it so it seems fair that it is taxed.

I would give everyone an inheritance allowance of about £100k. Everything else is taxed at 100%. Pay for everyone's universal social care, reduces inequality and encourages people to spend their money when they are living instead of hording it.

People don't like it because they think they are going to miss their small inheritance when they don't realise they are again being screwed by the ones that are inheriting billions and paying nothing and then struggling to pay for care.
 
Yearbyred said:
I can’t offer any specific advice but I know how worrying and upsetting it is after having to go through it last year with my mum.
Yerby
Looked at all the options and the costs were horrific.

Wish you all the best.
Click to expand...
Great post. It is a very worrying and upsetting time and a lot of people are going through this at the moment.

I wont comment further other than to offer my best wishes to you, your mother and to any others in your family and hope things work out for you.
 
thriftyrhinoceros said:
The way I see it is, if I were to get a mortgage on a house now worth a little over £100k whilst in my 20s, and paid it off over 30 years, which would probably be on the limit of about what I could afford - what exactly would be the point of doing all that, if, by the time I've paid it off I'll be nearly a pensioner and it could only be a couple of years before the state takes it off me anyway to pay for my care, despite paying taxes all my life. If I can't work towards something to leave behind for my children and family members when I'm gone, what exactly is the point?

Would it not be better to just rent instead, and put money into a savings account for them?
Click to expand...
Well let’s say you want to retire early or do phased retirement that option is less likely if you rent.

In addition lifetime mortgages are on the increase, you could release money out if you had paid your mortgage off and used it for yourself than it getting eaten up by care costs later down the line
 
Nano said:
I think there should be universal social care but I also think there should be much stricter inheritance tax rules. Inheritance is the key driver of inequality.

People ALWAYS get it wrong in arguing the money they are leaving behind is them being taxed again but in reality the person leaving the money pays no tax as they have died. It is the estate itself that pays the tax which reduces what people inherit. The inheritors have done nothing to earn it so it seems fair that it is taxed.

I would give everyone an inheritance allowance of about £100k. Everything else is taxed at 100%. Pay for everyone's universal social care, reduces inequality and encourages people to spend their money when they are living instead of hording it.

People don't like it because they think they are going to miss their small inheritance when they don't realise they are again being screwed by the ones that are inheriting billions and paying nothing and then struggling to pay for care.
Click to expand...
I love the idea of wealth going back into the system this way
 
Sorry can't really offer help re the Cash side but I think if its at possible if you or a sibling move into her house prior to need for care and its your primary residence you don't have to sell it for care costs but obviously not an easy thing to sort in most cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top