Why many of you won't be getting your parents home.

[techs]

Here's something that I am also curious about. If millions, perhaps 10's of millions of homes are going to be sold to pay for senior citizens long term nursing care, what will happen to the price of homes? Won't they plummet?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061226/ts_csm/amedicaid

In the face of soaring Medicaid costs, Tennessee and every other state are required to set up a Medicaid estate-recovery program. Many have been launched only recently, and some - like Tennessee's - are becoming more aggressive. Often, they target the home because it's all that's left after beneficiaries have spent their assets to pay for nursing-home care.

States base their programs on a 1993 federal law mandating that they recover what Medicaid spends on a beneficiary's long-term care. Congress approved the law to prevent states from forcing the sale of beneficiaries' homes while they were still living, in case their conditions improve and they can return home, says Mary Kahn, spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

James Napier and his family were shocked to receive a letter from the state of Texas about his ex-wife's home after she died in May 2005. She spent the last two months of her life in a nursing home. Now the family owes Medicaid $5,600


Ok, kids. Listen up. Does your Medicare plan cover long term care? Almost certainly NOT.
So if your parents need to go into a nursing home, after whatever short term coverage you have, will cost them 2,800 a month each, if they use the one in the above article. And 2,800 is for a Medicaid facility and is a low price.
Think how easy it will be for one or two parents needing only 2-3 years of care in a nursing home to completely drain the value of thier homes.

And you thought you were going to get that house, didn't you?
Ha Ha. I rent so your parents house is going to help pay to keep my cost down. Thanks

Death Tax On The Poor. The rich stay rich through inheritance, nepotism, cronyism, and buying politicians.

 

[ebaycj]

I look at the estate tax as an income tax. If you look at inheritance as income / gift to the person receiving the inheritance, it makes sense to tax it as you would normal income / gifts. The larger the inheritance, the larger the tax paid (as our income tax system currently is now)..

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
he rich stay rich through inheritance, nepotism, cronyism, and buying politicians.

Or maybe some of them know how to manage their assets? You know it's not too hard to get rich these days with a little intelligence.

 

[nageov3t]

sell the home to your kids for $1 ftw.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: loki8481
sell the home to your kids for $1 ftw.

Yep, I guess when you live in a fantasy world you come up with ideas like that.

 

[episodic]

All you have to do is take out a reverse mortgage - the parent that is. At least the parent gets a sizable chunk of the equity in cash that can then be transferred to another person.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: loki8481
sell the home to your kids for $1 ftw.

Yep, I guess when you live in a fantasy world you come up with ideas like that.

it's what my grandmother and great aunt did. so far, it's worked out well enough.

 

[Trevelyan]

Sigh... this is ridiculous.

It's not going to be long until we have 50% income tax and everything you own goes to the government when you die.

EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, this makes sense. I mean, they are just paying for the expensive care they are using. If they don't pay for it, that means all of us will. And since we would all be paying for it anyways, why don't we just continue dumping our parents into government run nursing homes?

So Democrats are wrong economically, and Republicans are wrong socially? Is that what I'm hearing here?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
So Democrats are wrong economically, and Republicans are wrong socially? Is that what I'm hearing here?

Isn't that always the case?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: loki8481
sell the home to your kids for $1 ftw.

Yep, I guess when you live in a fantasy world you come up with ideas like that.

it's what my grandmother and great aunt did. so far, it's worked out well enough.

The law requires fair market value to be used for such tax calcluations; the difference in price is a gift.

Your relatives may be breaking the law, unwittingly, with this attempt to reduce taxes.

For legal reasons and moral reasons, they should check into the law. I assume 'getting away with it' isn't the only issue for you.

 

[nergee]

"sell the home to your kids for $1 ftw."

..if it is ever sold, I suspect a massive capital gains tax will have to be paid......but then again, you got it for next to nothing....

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
So Democrats are wrong economically, and Republicans are wrong socially? Is that what I'm hearing here?

Isn't that always the case?

Well good, Congress is split close to 50/50 now, right? Either we get the best of both worlds, or else the stalemate means we don't get the worst.
I know I tend to be more conservative when it comes to economics, and liberal with social things. Sometimes. For example, I read recently that some casinos are serving alcoholic beverages free of charge. This impairs the judgement of the patrons, making them more likely to spend more money. The person writing the editorial about this said that casinos should not be permitted to do this. My take is that the person should be able to realize that alcohol, free or not, will still impair judgment. If they're stupid enough to partake anyway, the money they spent is equivalent to what many people have favored for a long time, that stupidity be painful, or in this case, expensive. It's a free market Stupid Tax.
So for me, how I feel on a lot of issues is usually, "It depends."

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan
Sigh... this is ridiculous.

It's not going to be long until we have 50% income tax and everything you own goes to the government when you die.

EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, this makes sense. I mean, they are just paying for the expensive care they are using. If they don't pay for it, that means all of us will. And since we would all be paying for it anyways, why don't we just continue dumping our parents into government run nursing homes?

So Democrats are wrong economically, and Republicans are wrong socially? Is that what I'm hearing here?

Let me rephrase what you said into how I see it.
It won't be long until 90 percent of the people in the US do not make enough money to pay for health insurance, their retirement and retirement health care while still having something left to leave their kids.
The reason is that the wealthy have somehow convinced the rest of us that we are getting more than we deserve and in fact we should be gettting less.
It has nothing to do with the government. The government takes your house IF you go broke trying to pay for long term nursing care and use Medicaid to pay for it.
So its not the governments fault you did not just go home and die and keep your house. You decided to use Medicaid to pay your bills. Instead of selling your house to pay for your care.
All the government is doing is getting paid back for what you took from the government. And didn't deserve cause you could have paid for it yourself by selling your home.

Oh yeah, all states have laws against selling or giving away your assets in order to be eleigible for Medicaid paid nursing care. And it goes back a few years.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
End of life care is a huge cost in the US. Maybe we should focus more on comfort at the end of life rather than just trying to keep people alive as long as possible?

Certainly my plan.

 

[episodic]

One thing I've always been curious about. The way that I understand it, you cannot be made responsible for another person's debt unless you signed to become responsible. How does the 'family' owe the debt? Going back on what the original poster said.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: episodic
One thing I've always been curious about. The way that I understand it, you cannot be made responsible for another person's debt unless you signed to become responsible. How does the 'family' owe the debt? Going back on what the original poster said.

It's not directly incurred by the heirs, but the debt will attached the estate and will therefore reduce any inheritance.

Ultimately, the money and house belonging to the person who is dying is theirs to do with as they please. If they want to spend it on health care rather than pass it on as inheritance, that's their prerogative and their heirs should suck it up and quit whining.

 

[Jadow]

Logan's Run is the way to go. Make the age 70 instead of 30 though.

 

[Jhhnn]

I agree with BoberFett on this one. Suck it up, heirs, or care for your elders yourselves, take your pick.

Sadly enough, it won't be much of an issue for most children of Boomers. Many of their parents will still have 20 years to pay on a refinanced 30 year mortgage when they need care, so there won't be any real assets, anyway... Most of what middle class people see as wealth is an illusion, anyway- it's measured in terms of how much you can borrow, rather than what your assets are worth... part and parcel of the ongoing accumulation of real wealth into the hands of a very, very few... "Home ownership" is increasingly just "mortgage payership", with actual ownership being in the hands of the Lenders...

 

[slash196]

I'm a little unclear on something: How does a family wind up "owing" Medicare money? I'll be the first to admit ignorance of the machinations of Medicare but my understanding is that it's designed to HELP people with medical costs, and not hold them responsible for the debts. To me that's like asking for your Social Security checks back. Why are government welfare programs charging people money? Isn't that what those things called "taxes" are for?

 

[theeedude]

So what's the problem? If the parents rack up nursing home expenses, why shouldn't their houses go to pay for them?
I don't see why they should be allowed to give their homes to the kids if they still have unpaid creditors.

 

[Jhhnn]

Medicare coverage for senior care residences and nursing homes comes into play only when the recipient can't pay for it themselves, slash196.

So, within that framework, that means that all their assets must first be liquidated before the govt picks up the tab... In a way, garnishing the estate is really the result of the govt having loaned the recipient the money for care. The care center gets paid monthly, and the govt only gets reimbused after the recipient is deceased... That, or the senior's legal representative can liquidate the estate, pay for care out of the proceeds and earnings from investing the funds, having the govt take over when and if the funds are exhausted...

 

[episodic]

Again, google reverse mortgage - problem at least partially solved.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: steppinthrax

Originally posted by: techs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20061226/ts_csm/amedicaid

In the face of soaring Medicaid costs, Tennessee and every other state are required to set up a Medicaid estate-recovery program. Many have been launched only recently, and some - like Tennessee's - are becoming more aggressive. Often, they target the home because it's all that's left after beneficiaries have spent their assets to pay for nursing-home care.

States base their programs on a 1993 federal law mandating that they recover what Medicaid spends on a beneficiary's long-term care. Congress approved the law to prevent states from forcing the sale of beneficiaries' homes while they were still living, in case their conditions improve and they can return home, says Mary Kahn, spokeswoman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

James Napier and his family were shocked to receive a letter from the state of Texas about his ex-wife's home after she died in May 2005. She spent the last two months of her life in a nursing home. Now the family owes Medicaid $5,600


Ok, kids. Listen up. Does your Medicare plan cover long term care? Almost certainly NOT.
So if your parents need to go into a nursing home, after whatever short term coverage you have, will cost them 2,800 a month each, if they use the one in the above article. And 2,800 is for a Medicaid facility and is a low price.
Think how easy it will be for one or two parents needing only 2-3 years of care in a nursing home to completely drain the value of thier homes.

And you thought you were going to get that house, didn't you?
Ha Ha. I rent so your parents house is going to help pay to keep my cost down. Thanks

One of the problems in this country is the low value we place on old people. In counteries like China you almost always never see nursing homes. It is expected from the children of those parents to take care of them. But in this country the youth of society finds it strange to do so.

I couldn't have said it any better :thumbsup:
The idea of shoving your own parents in a nursing home rather than taking care of them is ridiculous.

I agree as well.
You reap what you sow...

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Vic, you say you support a 100% estate tax at death. What exactly do you mean?

What it sounds like. You can't take it with you. This would be in return for no income taxes though (although use taxes would be acceptable IMO).

Why should children get inheritences? They didn't build their parents' wealth. And it is this handing-down of wealth from generation to generation that causes the great wealth disparity, not income. And that's why the gap between rich and poor keeps growing. The rich keep handing-down their wealth with interest compounded, while the poor have no wealth to begin with. Have you seen that Chris Rock stand-up bit where he talks about the difference between rich and wealthy? You should. Income can make you rich. It takes assets to be wealthy.

By the same token, kids didn't ask to be born, and there's an awful lot of estates that get probated when kids are young or not financially independent. I think there'd be quite an issue with minor children and housewives that were dependent upon a spouse or parent if an estate was taxed 100% at death. A lot of people give up their careers to stay at home, and I also think there'd be quite an issue with taking care of minor children if the government obtained all the assets. Then, you'd almost have to set up a welfare state or system for the children to live-in.

Besides, a person's money is their own. If they want to give it to their children, their church, the dogcatcher, or burn it that should be their right. Dead people can't vote, so it seems silly to tax them without representation.

As a whole, I think the death tax is rather silly. Taxes were paid on those assets, even though generational inheritance can obscure or reduce that with trusts, corporations and the like. Regardless, a cornerstone of our freedom stems from the ability to do what you want with your money regardless of whether you are alive or not.

Think of how many old curmudgeons laugh in their graves when their family reads their will. Maybe they get nothing, or perhaps they load their trusts with requirements and tap-dancing that give their family hell. The humor alone is worth reason enough to leave it alone.