‘Knowing’ what to do……

Can anyone explain why, when someone dies, most of what he (or she – Ed) has saved up over a lifetime should be turned over to politicians, rather than to his (or her – Ed) heirs?
Thomas Sowell

Many stories have emerged in the media detailing how people who have  behaved financially, ie been prudent, have ‘lost’ their ‘assets’ (be that savings or ‘property value’, when they have needed ‘care’ in their final years (ie care homes).

I hold  Power of Attorney for a lady, currently 103 years of age, whose savings were just over the border line whereby she could receive ‘free care’. This lady,  who lost her ‘one and only love’ during World War II and never married,  worked all her life for one employer and by means of ‘due diligence’ accumulated what, to some, would be considered a small fortune.

When I assumed control of her affairs I ensured that she was entitled to every state benefit for which she was eligible, on the principle she had contributed into the ‘system’ all her working life, one which immigrants now enjoy for which they have paid no contributions. I am no accountant, nor tax expert, but through careful research I have manged to ‘lose’ the ‘excess money’ so that she is now able to receive those state benefits to which she is entitled.

Also, recently, I was able to advise someone whose home was held 50/50 as ‘tenants in common’ with her child to transfer 100% ownership of their home to her child. This means that the state cannot claim on her home to pay for any later-life care she may need. I also  arranged for her savings (which amounted to nearly six figures) to be placed ‘in trust’ for the benefit of her child – which means the state can’t grab that either. As in the centurion above, this person had worked all her life teaching and had paid into the ‘system’ and, in my opinion, is entitled to every state benefit available.

In both instances, where the preceding paragraph is concerned, the ‘seven-year-rule’ applies. Allowing for this some councils are more ‘understanding’ than others, of which mine is one and my solicitor is of the firm opinion that should this lady die within the now 6 years remaining that there will not be a problem.

Why do we allow the state to ‘grab’ our hard- earned money and savings we have accrued without our approval? In this regard I must refer to ‘Referism’ – an idea first proposed by Richard  AE North and which has been incorporated into The Harrogate Agenda (point 5).

Is it not time we took control of our personal money and decided how it is to be spent rather than, as at present, it being forcibly taken from us under pain of imprisonment if we disagree?





4 thoughts on “‘Knowing’ what to do……

  1. David, I too feel the same as you. I intend setting up a trust for my savings, though at 66 my financial adviser says it’s a little too early. The biggest problem is my house because as you no doubt know you can’t include it in a trust. I don’t have a wife or children so transfers are a little more complicated; I have considered downsizing but in reality, why should I move from a house I’ve lived in for 25 years or so to ensure the taxman and/or the local authority don’t get their grubby little hands on it?
    I think inheritance tax is an awful tax and care provision funding is unfair to those of us who have probably paid for it several times over during our working life in higher income tax and National Insurance tax.

    But I suppose you have to play the game according to the rules as they exist at the time.

    1. You can sign ownershi to your best friend or friends, a neighbour, anyone – with the proviso that you have ‘tenure’ for as long as you want. You can also have another condition: when the house become too large for you to keep, you can sell it and buy something smaller. the equity (less the cost of a smaller house) from the sale goes to the beneficiary and the value of the smaller house you buy, when you die, then passes to said beneficiary.

      Simples?? Go see a solicitor?

  2. I think gifting property (directly or via a trust) may work so long as the donor can’t be shown to have reason to believe that he/she will in fact need care in the foreseeable future, and it may help to give explicitly the reason that the gift is “for love and affection” or suchlike. [In some cases there is also the danger that the donee may turf the oldie out.]


  3. As the last will left everything to the child that covers the love and affection aspect. This agreement specifies that the parent may remain in the home until such time as she can no longer cope. As to care in the future, we all need care at the end of our lives, which negates that point.

Comments are closed.