Is Labour Prosecuting A Class War?
News4 mins ago
Avoiding Care Charges
162 Answers
If I owned my own house and have money in the bank what is the best way to avoid charges if I were to go into a home
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lisdar. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is a really interesting thread, and it's obvious people have many differing views, depending presumably upon their political persuasion.
Its true to say we are living longer, although many of us are staying healthy into old age. Eventually though most of us may need care of some kind, whether residential or at home. I have experienced both with my parents and in laws. They paid their taxes in over many years, and hoped that when the time for them to need to take something out, it would be acceptable and they wouldn't have everything they had saved for over the years, and hoped to leave to their children, taken away.
I can't agree that as a country we can't afford it. We are the 7th or thereabouts, richest country in the world, you only have to look around you to see the ostentatious spending that goes on (won't mention weddings or anything of that kind).
There is money, it's just a matter of how you raise it, who from and what you do with it. frankly if we can't care for our old, sick and vulnerable, what kind of society does that make us.
I had a very interesting conversation many years ago with a couple of swedish midwives. They told me they are taxed quite heavily, but are OK with this. They said, although they had no children, and their parents were well and fit, at that time they were paying in but taking nothing out. They realised though, and acknowledged that they may well have kids that needed to be educated, and their parents may well get old and dependent and need care. And anyone, at any time can become ill, or disabled. They believed that it was a sign of a civilised society that you pay your taxes, and the wealth was shared out, as was the load. It was very refreshing to hear and it saddens me that we appear to totally have lost any kind of empathy or understanding of the problems that many people face.
Being poor and/or ill/disabled is not a lifestyle choice, so many people have never had the benefit of life chances, good education or healthy living choices. I would like to see a country that is managed for the benefit of all, not just for those who already have more than they can possible consume. I am sad to say though that I don't think we are going to get that kind of country.
Its true to say we are living longer, although many of us are staying healthy into old age. Eventually though most of us may need care of some kind, whether residential or at home. I have experienced both with my parents and in laws. They paid their taxes in over many years, and hoped that when the time for them to need to take something out, it would be acceptable and they wouldn't have everything they had saved for over the years, and hoped to leave to their children, taken away.
I can't agree that as a country we can't afford it. We are the 7th or thereabouts, richest country in the world, you only have to look around you to see the ostentatious spending that goes on (won't mention weddings or anything of that kind).
There is money, it's just a matter of how you raise it, who from and what you do with it. frankly if we can't care for our old, sick and vulnerable, what kind of society does that make us.
I had a very interesting conversation many years ago with a couple of swedish midwives. They told me they are taxed quite heavily, but are OK with this. They said, although they had no children, and their parents were well and fit, at that time they were paying in but taking nothing out. They realised though, and acknowledged that they may well have kids that needed to be educated, and their parents may well get old and dependent and need care. And anyone, at any time can become ill, or disabled. They believed that it was a sign of a civilised society that you pay your taxes, and the wealth was shared out, as was the load. It was very refreshing to hear and it saddens me that we appear to totally have lost any kind of empathy or understanding of the problems that many people face.
Being poor and/or ill/disabled is not a lifestyle choice, so many people have never had the benefit of life chances, good education or healthy living choices. I would like to see a country that is managed for the benefit of all, not just for those who already have more than they can possible consume. I am sad to say though that I don't think we are going to get that kind of country.
As far as I understand tenancy in common is that rather than owning the whole property jointly, each person owns only half of the property (in the case of a couple - it could be any number of people owning a share). in the event of the death of one of the parties to the tenancy (by tenancy i don't mean renting, i mean owning), the half that belonged to the deceased is left in trust to whoever you had decided in advance you wanted it to go to. the person left, still owns their own half, but has no further control over the other half. i would have thought that if you only have ownership of half an asset, you can only be assessed on the value of that. it has certainly opened up a very large can of worms, but i stand by what i have already said - we are a rich country, despite what we are led by the politicians to believe - if we cannot care for our old, sick and disabled, what kind of society are we.
“As far as I understand tenancy in common is that rather than owning the whole property jointly, each person owns only half of the property…”
I’m not talking about tenants-in-common. I’m talking about joint tenants.
No single party owns a discrete part of the equity. The whole is owned by the two (or more) partners. Taking a charge on the property because one party may fall liable to make payments does not seem quite legal to me because the one party does not own any of the property – the partnership does. This is not my area of expertise. I wonder if Barmaid can help us.
I’m not talking about tenants-in-common. I’m talking about joint tenants.
No single party owns a discrete part of the equity. The whole is owned by the two (or more) partners. Taking a charge on the property because one party may fall liable to make payments does not seem quite legal to me because the one party does not own any of the property – the partnership does. This is not my area of expertise. I wonder if Barmaid can help us.
I think what first brought this subject in was how to avoid paying care home charges!! So far as I understand the whole thing is that the normal way that a couple (married or otherwise) own their home is jointly. both of them together own the whole property. So if one of them were to die, the remaining person would then own the whole property. (depending of course of what was in any will they may have). Tenancy in common is when each person owns half of the property. I think this is how it is thought you might avoid care home fees, if they assess the value of your house at, say, £200,000, you, as the individual needing care, only has an asset of £100,000. Often people in second relationships, who have children from a previous relationship own their property this way, so that the person with the children can leave their half of the property to them. Otherwise, if they were to die, their partner, not the father of said children, would own all of the property and could do what he or she liked with it. There are other ways of getting around this of course, with trusts and the like. these are very complex financial and legal matters, and anyone thinking of making any changes to their legal ownership of a property would be well advised to consult someone legally qualified.
"So if one of them were to die, the remaining person would then own the whole property. (depending of course of what was in any will they may have)."
The bit in brackets does not apply to joint tenancies. A joint tenant cannot leave his or her half of the property via a will or anything else (simply because he or she does not own half the property - the partnership owns it all). That is why it seems to me to be impossible to make a call on property owned as joint tenants. Neither individual owns any of the equity. It's not really off-topic because the question was "how to avoid charges" (when a property is owned). It would seem to me the best way is to ensure you own your property with somebody else as joint tenants. If the person requiring care dies first then the partnership is obviously no more, but the property reverts to the sole ownership of the survivor (who is not responsible for the debts of the deceased).
The bit in brackets does not apply to joint tenancies. A joint tenant cannot leave his or her half of the property via a will or anything else (simply because he or she does not own half the property - the partnership owns it all). That is why it seems to me to be impossible to make a call on property owned as joint tenants. Neither individual owns any of the equity. It's not really off-topic because the question was "how to avoid charges" (when a property is owned). It would seem to me the best way is to ensure you own your property with somebody else as joint tenants. If the person requiring care dies first then the partnership is obviously no more, but the property reverts to the sole ownership of the survivor (who is not responsible for the debts of the deceased).
my daughter in law is a conveyencer. she changes ownership of property for many people. i checked with her. indeed, you can have ownership as 'tenants in common' where each person owns a proportion of the house. not any particular bit, upstairs or down or that kind of thing, just a proportion. there can be any number of people in this, and its also knows as shared ownership. each person owns a percentage of equity in the property, and can dispose of their share as they wish. they can sell it while they're alive, if they can get anyone to be interested in a share of a property, or they can will it to whoever they like. so if as a couple, each owns 50% equity, each one only has an asset which is valued at 50% of what the property would be valued at, full value. it is very difficult to value a share of a property due to the lack of possible customers. this is nothing to do with a partnership, this kind of agreement is an entirely different legal entity. i am of course talking about the law as it applies in the uk. i recognise that there are people on this website who may not be resident here, in which case the law of their country might be entirely different. for example in france, the laws of ownership and inheritance are vastly different from the uk.
i think we are possibly at cross purposes. as far as joint ownership is concerned, each person owns jointly, the whole value of the property and i believe can be assessed on that. obviously when one person dies, the whole value reverts to the survivor. i am seeking legal advice about this. solicitors will be coining it in
"...obviously when one person dies, the whole value reverts to the survivor."
Quite so. And it's only then (after the first death - of the person who has needed care) that under these proposals the care costs can be recovered. But at that point the survivor owns 100% of the property. So the authorities will be taken money (from the equity of the property) that is owned 100% by someone else.
Quite so. And it's only then (after the first death - of the person who has needed care) that under these proposals the care costs can be recovered. But at that point the survivor owns 100% of the property. So the authorities will be taken money (from the equity of the property) that is owned 100% by someone else.
i get exactly what you are saying new judge. however, even though two people own a property together, both of them are deemed to own the whole value, which does seem wrong, and like nonsense, but i think this is the way that it works. i have got my daughter in law onto this with the solicitors she works for, for some proper legal clarification. she has told me, many older people now are putting their property into tenancy in common for this reason. i think we should just spend it on world cruises and fancy clothes!! oh no though, isn't that intentional deprivation of assets. i think that given the interest rates are so rubbish, i might start taking it out a bit at a time and hiding it in the mattress. but if there any burglars out there who are now rapidly trying to find out who i am, i didn't do it yet. there is no money hidden anywhere at all in my house, generally we are like the queen, we don't carry money!!
The reason I asked is because my father died at 80 without any social care so i assume I will do also,
but my wife who is from a long living family mother died at 96 in a care home of which she had to pay £550 a week out of her savings for 6 years until all her money had gone I would rather leave it to my family
but my wife who is from a long living family mother died at 96 in a care home of which she had to pay £550 a week out of her savings for 6 years until all her money had gone I would rather leave it to my family
