Considering that the taxpayers fund pointless wars all over the globe and waste money without any voice, take your money back. Choose A. They'll take her estate after she passes unless its in a trust anyway
Keeping 600k would protect mom's autonomy and prevent possible heartbreaking arguments in the family. Thank you for bringing up questions like this one!
The objective moral answer is B, but A is completely understandable and no one would judge you for it because the real problem is a macroeconomic problem: the cost of nursing homes. It's a supply/demand issue. Because we give free nursing homes to the poor, there is a huge demand for nursing homes, which makes it more expensive. Fixed payments and guaranteed patients from the government means facilities will try to optimize for profit since they don't need to compete, meaning you'll be paying more for less. The optimal solution is probably for the government to stop paying for nursing care. It would reduce the costs and make nursing homes more affordable, so most people would be better off. The poor would likely have to rely on moving in with their adult children for support. And the very poor would likely die sooner. Economics is dismal. Politically the solution doesn't work, who can run on that? So by our good nature and providing for the poor, we have almost necessitated "Mom" has to go with option A even with $600K. Because of this, I think Option A is understandable and good and Option B is a self-sacrificing kind of good. Self-sacrifice can be noble and good, but sometimes it is foolish and naive.
I’ve worked in nursing homes and see private payers share a room with Medicaid recipients. So if A can be worked out and no long term care insurance is available…save the hard earned estate money for the estate. I’ve even seen nursing homes put a lien on the house to get their pounds of flesh. So keep what you can.
I don't plan on it. Some states don't count retirement funds but should the trustee or POA use it for your care. I would rather he use the funds to provide decent care whether its for me or my wife. Hopefully, my children would agree its the right thing to do.
Sounds like something of a middle income trap. Those with 5x that amount probably wouldn't even consider such a maneuver because they want a better lifestyle, but with 1/5 that amount wouldn't hesitate.
My sister stole every dime my mother had as power of attorney to go to the casino. No one had any clue. I believe it killed mom. So, be careful where the money gets transferred because if someone needs the money “to take care of mom” they will take every last dime, especially if they have any addiction. And then have the audacity to rationalize it, as if they did nothing wrong by committing financial exploitation elder abuse for years. 😢 You think that could not possibly happen, there needs to be oversight by another sibling.
As an elder law attorney, I answer the legal question: they set up the rules, we'll work within those rules to get you the best outcome we can. As for the moral question, i.e. whether it is "wrong" to do that kind of planning, I have a hard time seeing the struggle between the individual and the leviathan as a moral struggle. If giving away assets five years early is immoral, increase the lookback period to seven years. Or ten. Change the rules so grantors can't retain income rights or the use and possession of real estate in a trust without the trust assets being countable. Breaking the law is wrong. Obeying the law is not. Cheating the system is wrong. Working within the system is not.
If mom has $600k why the hell does she need to live off the state? Why are you telling people to do this? $11k per month - maybe?? - might happen years from now? She needs to keep her own money, invest it safely and live off it. It can last her, her lifetime and into a nursing home if necessary. Despicable that you are even discussing this when someone has so much money. Medicaid is for people that actually need it not for wealthy people wanting to lie and cheat. Appalling
What about moving the money into a trust, that only is allowed to pay her a small amount every month? And the children can GIFT her an additional amount as needed, so Mom's cash assets never exceed $2k?
Considering that the taxpayers fund pointless wars all over the globe and waste money without any voice, take your money back. Choose A. They'll take her estate after she passes unless its in a trust anyway
Do the right thing and have her keep her money.
Answer is B. Not all assisted living or nursing homes are the same. Use the money to pay for quality care.
Keeping 600k would protect mom's autonomy and prevent possible heartbreaking arguments in the family. Thank you for bringing up questions like this one!
Only the middle class will be burdened with the proper answer to this conundrum.
Tour a medicaid nursing home before picking A. It's not worth the fraud. Make LTC expenses part of your retirement planning.
B is the correct and only answer for anyone with integrity
it's too bad the systems in place are corrupt and drive people to work the system.
The integrity field is not level. Prices are inflated beyond belief and care is sketchy. If the charges were fair I’d have a different answer.
The objective moral answer is B, but A is completely understandable and no one would judge you for it because the real problem is a macroeconomic problem: the cost of nursing homes. It's a supply/demand issue. Because we give free nursing homes to the poor, there is a huge demand for nursing homes, which makes it more expensive. Fixed payments and guaranteed patients from the government means facilities will try to optimize for profit since they don't need to compete, meaning you'll be paying more for less. The optimal solution is probably for the government to stop paying for nursing care. It would reduce the costs and make nursing homes more affordable, so most people would be better off. The poor would likely have to rely on moving in with their adult children for support. And the very poor would likely die sooner. Economics is dismal. Politically the solution doesn't work, who can run on that? So by our good nature and providing for the poor, we have almost necessitated "Mom" has to go with option A even with $600K. Because of this, I think Option A is understandable and good and Option B is a self-sacrificing kind of good. Self-sacrifice can be noble and good, but sometimes it is foolish and naive.
I’ve worked in nursing homes and see private payers share a room with Medicaid recipients. So if A can be worked out and no long term care insurance is available…save the hard earned estate money for the estate. I’ve even seen nursing homes put a lien on the house to get their pounds of flesh. So keep what you can.
I don't plan on it. Some states don't count retirement funds but should the trustee or POA use it for your care. I would rather he use the funds to provide decent care whether its for me or my wife. Hopefully, my children would agree its the right thing to do.
Do the right thing and use the money for what it was intended, to take care of mom until it runs out.
Sounds like something of a middle income trap. Those with 5x that amount probably wouldn't even consider such a maneuver because they want a better lifestyle, but with 1/5 that amount wouldn't hesitate.
Oregon goes back 10 years to collect money.
When the house sells, Medicaid recoup the nursing home costs. So you’ll want to transfer 5 years earlier before going in.
My sister stole every dime my mother had as power of attorney to go to the casino. No one had any clue. I believe it killed mom. So, be careful where the money gets transferred because if someone needs the money “to take care of mom” they will take every last dime, especially if they have any addiction. And then have the audacity to rationalize it, as if they did nothing wrong by committing financial exploitation elder abuse for years. 😢 You think that could not possibly happen, there needs to be oversight by another sibling.
Complicated issue with a lot of factors to consider
I thought Medicaid can go after your estate after death to reimburse any monies, if there are any funds
As an elder law attorney, I answer the legal question: they set up the rules, we'll work within those rules to get you the best outcome we can.
As for the moral question, i.e. whether it is "wrong" to do that kind of planning, I have a hard time seeing the struggle between the individual and the leviathan as a moral struggle. If giving away assets five years early is immoral, increase the lookback period to seven years. Or ten. Change the rules so grantors can't retain income rights or the use and possession of real estate in a trust without the trust assets being countable.
Breaking the law is wrong. Obeying the law is not. Cheating the system is wrong. Working within the system is not.
If mom has $600k why the hell does she need to live off the state? Why are you telling people to do this? $11k per month - maybe?? - might happen years from now? She needs to keep her own money, invest it safely and live off it. It can last her, her lifetime and into a nursing home if necessary.
Despicable that you are even discussing this when someone has so much money. Medicaid is for people that actually need it not for wealthy people wanting to lie and cheat. Appalling
People that have the money should be required to use that money and NOT the tax payer funded Medicare/Medicaid by using loop holes.
I’m giving kids as much as I can till I’m that old anyway. There won’t be much then. I want to make kids life better while I can
When the 600,000 runs out she will be eligible for Medicaid.
What about moving the money into a trust, that only is allowed to pay her a small amount every month? And the children can GIFT her an additional amount as needed, so Mom's cash assets never exceed $2k?
What if it too late, the Trustor may not be legal competent anymore to aid in the moving of her assets.
A
Plan A. Take the government $$ whenever possible. Endless wars, sanctuary cities, andopen borders, when we didn't vote for them.
the answer is A