Why Can't Those That Own Their Houses Pass Them On To Their Children If They Are Unfortunate To Go Into Care, During Their Final Years?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6372901/RAF-hero-95-sell-home-pay-care-hes-survived-long.html

It has taken these two hero's predicament to highlight once again the unfairness between those that have struggled to buy their homes and those who chose not to.

[SparklyKid]

Disgraceful. Seems the NHS have a bigger priority, health tourists.

[andy-hughes]

Because it's easy money for the government.

Why would they spend tax payers' money, when they can force children to sell parental homes to pay for care.

It's not right, obviously, but that's the reason.

[sandyRoe]

If you owned a house and needed to go into care and were allowed to keep it, who would foot the bill?

[Sqad]

Sorry.....I do appreciate the contribution that he has made to his country in time of war, however, why should the tax payer, pay for his residential care whilst his children have a £300,000 legacy to care up?

[Old_Geezer]

We have a health service, and in old age health can be an issue, both physical and mental; tax paid should cover the health issues it was collected for, otherwise it is failing to do it's job. Suggesting that once old you have to contribute to the costs is ageism. It's high time government sorted it.

[Old_Geezer]

"who would foot the bill?"
Society of course. Public funding for basic needs is what tax collection is all about. Otherwise we end up with the US system ++ where everyone copes on their own and devil takes the hindmost.

[Old_Geezer]

"why should the tax payer, pay for his residential care whilst his children have a £300,000 legacy to care up?"

Because health is a publicly funded issue. His children are entitled to inherit, under normal inheritance tax systems of course; which is a separate issue.

[Sqad]

O_G....you support the tax payer "ringfencing " the guy's legacy?

What if his legacy was £1million pounds, would you still expect the tax payer to support hos residential care?

[Old_Geezer]

I don't consider anything has been ringfenced; I'm simply suggesting the government doesn't mug him of the wealth he's accumulated simply because it can.

Of course I'd still support the £1M individual, but I'd suspect they'd prefer to go private, and their estate would be subject to a larger inheritance tax when the time came.

[Sqad]

O_G

We clearly differ in our opinions here.

[jno]

agree with Sqad. Why should people give away their property then expect the state to care for them?

What do ABers routinely say about people who have can't afford to have kids but expect the state to pay for them?

[maggiebee]

Not sure about the law in England, but in Scotland you can sign your house over to your children while you are still alive. Of course you have to live a further 7 years after this before no money can be clawed back by the Govt. If you do not legally own the property then it can't be sold to fund care. Know at least a couple of folk who have done this.

[THECORBYLOON]

He has also had £40,000 stolen from him by a relative. Perhaps if he had got that back it would have helped for the next few months.

[Old_Geezer]

I say it should be discouraged somehow, but unless, as a society, we are happy for children to suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents it has no option but to intervene.

[woofgang]

Maggie, I don't know if the councils work differently in Scotland but in England that can be called "deprivation of assets" and the council can assess the person'r assets as though they still owned the house...there is also a legal aspect which has been mentioned on here before which is that in order for something not to be included in your estae for tax puprposes, you cannot benefit from it...so eg if you give your house away but continue to live there, you must pay a commercial rent.

edit....same residential care funding rules for Scotland and England....
http://www.careinfoscotland.scot/topics/care-homes/paying-care-home-fees/deprivation-of-capital/

[emmie]

not right and certainly not fair.

[woofgang]

OG....this is not about healthcare which remains free at the point of delivery. This is about SOCIAL care. Everyone has to live somewhere and I don't see why a child's inheritance should come before the care and well being of the person who owns the house. There is a choice. If the children want the house and the parent agrees then they can care for the parent until his/her death, not asking for public monies to do so....then they can do what they like with the house.

[maggiebee]

Thanks woolfgang, wasn't quite sure how it worked in practice. Perhaps folk come to some arrangement about "commercial rent" with their children? On paper pay, but don't actually do so?

[jno]

unless we are happy for children to suffer because of the irresponsibility of their parents it has no option but to intervene

on behalf of young children, certainly. Any reason why the state should come to the aid of adult children who haven't inherited as much as they would like?

[woofgang]

Maggie I have no idea. Risky though as that's fraud.