# Cut Your Living Expenses w/o Lowering Your Standard of Living



## Lara

Things you can do to cut your living expenses without lowering your standard of living:

1. Give your house to your children via an Irrevocable Trust. Then rent the house and live there. Have an estate attorney draft the documents and provisions. 

2. Sell your home to your kids and live there...maybe pay rent, maybe not.

Gifting or selling your house to your children and then living there is the only option that will both maintain your lifestyle and reduce your costs according to Timothy Speises of the firm, EisnerAmper.

As long as your children are willing and able to pay for the property taxes, maintenance, repairs, and any remaining mortgage payments, your house costs will be low...maybe even non-existent.


----------



## Lara

Plus, your children's outlays will return big dividends when they sell the home later on.


----------



## treeguy64

Hmm - - - -, not sure I go along with the above.  Why would my kids want to take on the burden of maintaining my house, and paying the hefty Austin taxes, each year?  I'm not sure anyone's kids would, unless they had a masochistic streak.  Also, what happens if the kids decide that they need the money from selling the house, and get a lawyer to try and get me out, despite the pre-existing contract?  I could see very, very bad situations popping up, in my final years.  No, I'll pass on your advice.  Thanks, though, for the input.


----------



## Ken N Tx

It will not work for us..Our home equity is also an insurance policy for us. If something happens to either of us will sell the ponderosa and use the equity to sustain our lifestyle longer. We both understand that we could not stay here alone and do all that is necessary to maintain it.

Our 6 children and their spouses have enough to handle with there living arrangements..


----------



## StarSong

This strikes me as very strange professional financial advice because of the potentially disastrous repercussions.  I'm with Ken & Treeguy on this one.   

Even the stablest child can get into financial difficulty.  Your home then winds up on his/her asset sheet and will be ripe for the taking by creditors and you'll literally be standing out in the cold.    

What if you and your child (or his/her spouse) have a falling out?  Irrevocable trusts are, um, irrevocable.  Courts will nothing for you (other than shake their heads at your naive foolishness) without solid proof of fraud, undue influence or (your own) mental incapacity at the time of deeding over your house.    

I wouldn't place this kind of pressure on my relationship with my children, nor would I risk my largest asset to conserve a few thousand dollars a year.  

My highly unprofessional, but free advice to someone who can't afford to live in their home?  Get a roommate or move someplace that costs less.


----------



## Keesha

We don’t have children but this sounds a bit dodgy. Your most important investment left in the hands of your offspring. Your kids. There’s so much that could go wrong. Since we don’t have children we will put a reverse mortgage on our house and use it as additional income when and if needed.


----------



## RadishRose

Anything can go wrong sometimes, that's for sure. I'm thinking these suggestions automatically assume everyone involved is on board and relationships are solid and stable enough to consider these scenarios. Something I'll think about later.


----------



## Aunt Bea

I would not even consider putting myself or my family in that situation unless it was a unique one of a kind property like the Bush family home in Maine.

Even then I would sell or gift the house to the kids and make other living arrangements for myself.

I would advise any senior citizen to stay in control of their living situation and their finances until the end if possible. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too especially if you let your kids beat you to it!


----------



## Butterfly

StarSong said:


> This strikes me as very strange professional financial advice because of the potentially disastrous repercussions.  I'm with Ken & Treeguy on this one.
> 
> Even the stablest child can get into financial difficulty.  Your home then winds up on his/her asset sheet and will be ripe for the taking by creditors and you'll literally be standing out in the cold.
> 
> What if you and your child (or his/her spouse) have a falling out?  Irrevocable trusts are, um, irrevocable.  Courts will nothing for you (other than shake their heads at your naive foolishness) without solid proof of fraud, undue influence or (your own) mental incapacity at the time of deeding over your house.
> 
> I wouldn't place this kind of pressure on my relationship with my children, nor would I risk my largest asset to conserve a few thousand dollars a year.
> 
> My highly unprofessional, but free advice to someone who can't afford to live in their home?  Get a roommate or move someplace that costs less.



I strongly agree, and I certainly would not do this.  If the child ends up in bankruptcy for some reason -- like medical bills or a lost job or some other misfortune -- the house would end up in their assets and probably would end up on the bankruptcy chopping block whether there is a mortgage against it or not.  There is a whole myriad of things that could go wrong here, and I would NEVER be willing to take this huge risk.   Or what if your child simply decides to sell it out from under you for some reason??  Or the house winds up as a divisible asset in a divorce?

No, No, No.

People always think their children will always treat them fairly, and it ain't necessarily so.


----------



## Lara

Interesting reactions, and that's what I was hoping for because I want to hear all red flags and green flags. I can certainly see that everyone's situation is different. 

I think this scenario would work quite well for me, although not necessary...yet. I have 4 children so they could share expenses. My home is paid for so no mortgage debt. Expenses would only be maintenance and property taxes. I'd pay my utilities and HOA. I crunched the numbers with expenses vs. increase in value over the past 18 years and they wouldn't lose. But I can see where location of other seniors would negatively affect this if their property wasn't increasing in value enough.

My Will has all my children in a Trust so it would be managed by the trustee...end of any disagreements as the trustee has the last word. But as far as one or two of them falling on hard times and not being able to afford their share of maintenance, and property tax, I can see the problem. Could it be written into the Will that their unpaid part of maintenance/tax, including interest, would then be deducted from their inheritance of the house? Hmm. 

Meanwhile, the value of the home would increase more than their expenses but not all that much. Not like it would if I were in California. They would share in the sale of the property when I'm gone though, free of estate tax.


----------



## Roadwarrior

Sorry, ain't gonna happen as long as I can control my actions, living arrangements & everything else.  Saw what happens with families & deaths.  My father was shut out of his mother's estate by his alcoholic brother.  My mother gained control over my now passed sister's estate because the SIL wasn't well thought of, closing out her grand children's inheritance.  I cared for my father in his last days, trying to protect him from abuse by my mother.  After my father's passing & my mother's my older sister & I were shut out of any inheritance by my two younger siblings, we were not even listed as survivors on our mother's obit.

When I retired we sold house, belongings & anything of value, then called all the children, grandchildren told them they will get their inheritance if they show up with trucks & trailers to clean out our 2 storage bays.  Moved out of state with a small cargo trailer & some luggage.  Have helped my children & grandchildren financially but everything is setup to go to my wife when I pass, 90% of my income will stop when she passes.  I still own an 8 acre plot of ground in another state that we have decided to give to our 3 offspring, two want to sell now & get their share, I said no, it may be my only salvation for my golden years.  I still maintain ownership.  You want an example of dysfunctional look no further than my ancestors.


----------



## Meanderer




----------



## DaveA

Sorry folks - -too late for us.  We gave the our home to our youngest daughter back in 1995 and our 2 families have lived there ever since. At that time we retained a life lease and an agreement that if the property was sold during our lifetime the amount would be split evenly. It's a home that has never been out of our family and for most of it's lifetime has housed 2 generations.  You all know your family as I do mine.  It's been 23 years now, the grandkids were born during that time and are now in college and high school.

We've been able to travel, sometimes being away from home for 6 or 7 months of the year.  Never a worry about the property and in accepting the home the kids also took on all expenses to do with it.  Heat, electric, taxes, maintenance, etc., so we have no living expenses in that regard.

Would I recommend this to others - -probably not as in many families it would create bitterness amongst the other children and some folks sadly, don't seem to get along that well with their off spring.  It has been a God-send for us and probably one of the best life decisions that  we've made.  No problems have arisen and being surrounded by family is, IMHO, far preferable to finishing my days sitting among a group of old timers like myself with whom I have no connection. We all make choices and sometimes they work and sometimes not.  We have been lucky with ours.

At almost 85, I haven't much time left, nor my wife who's 82.  I hope my end will come in the  same bedroom that we presently use.  My grand-dad and mom both finished their days in that same room. My grand-mother in the hospital and my dad on the front lawn while 
mowing.  Since being built in 1921 our home has never left the family or been sold - -only handed down from one generation to the next.

I


----------



## Meanderer

What a great family story, Dave!  It seems that your "lump of coal"turned into a "fabulous diamond"!  Thanks for sharing it with us!


----------



## terry123

Would not work for me!!


----------



## C'est Moi

I'm with the majority here... not going to happen.   Our home is paid for and taxes/insurance are reasonable.  Our children have enough on their plates already.   Might be a solution for some, but definitely NOT for us.


----------



## Uptosnuff

I have a different reaction to this than others on the board.  My sister and I did this for our parents.  This was in the early 1990s.  My father had a MAJOR stroke that left him paralyzed and in a nursing home.  They couldn't show that they had any assets, like a house, or the they would have to use it to pay the nursing home.  We signed a paper giving us the house equally between my sister and I.  The house was long paid for.  My mother still paid whatever taxes there were, the utilities, etc.  but it didn't show up as an asset for them.  She lived there until she died, ironically before my father did.  When my mother passed on, all my five siblings and I divided the proceeds from the house equally.  We would not have thought to do anything differently.

So this type of thing can work out.  I guess everyone needs to act like adults and not spoiled children.


----------



## Lara

Yes, Uptosnuff. It seems to work well when the equation is right, thanks to no mortgage, your mother paying taxes, utilities, etc., and "siblings who all acted like adults". Good for you...and them.

When choosing an executor for my estate in my Will, I discussed it with all of my children. I explained I could pay an outsider to be the Trustee or I could choose one of them. They all agreed on the 2nd oldest daughter who is the only sibling to live in the same state as I, she is the least likely to move, she gets along with everyone, and is trusted by all to be fair. I feel my children will do fine to work things out with this plan after I'm gone.

They also offered to help her with any duties needed to finalize the estate upon her request and understood she has the last word in all decisions.


----------



## DaveA

Lara said:


> Yes, Uptosnuff. It seems to work well when the equation is right, thanks to no mortgage, your mother paying taxes, utilities, etc., and "siblings who all acted like adults". Good for you...and them.
> 
> When choosing an executor for my estate in my Will, I discussed it with all of my children. I explained I could pay an outsider to be the Trustee or I could choose one of them. They all agreed on the 2nd oldest daughter who is the only sibling to live in the same state as I, she is the least likely to move, she gets along with everyone, and is trusted by all to be fair. I feel my children will do fine to work things out with this plan after I'm gone.
> 
> They also offered to help her with any duties needed to finalize the estate upon her request and understood she has the last word in all decisions.


We also made a similar choice, Lara.  Our second oldest daughter (with the consent of the other 3 kids) We also have left copies of our final wishes to be distributed to the other children so as to lessen the burden on our daughter in explaining our wishes.  Not to be confused with our will, this is just a non-legal document that choices carried out by our daughter are not her idea but what we wished.

Our 4 kids are all nearby and are very close as are their siblings so I don't foresee any problems.  We are not wealthy folks so there is no small or large fortune for the kids to bicker over. Haha


----------



## C'est Moi

Uptosnuff said:


> I have a different reaction to this than others on the board.  My sister and I did this for our parents.  This was in the early 1990s.  My father had a MAJOR stroke that left him paralyzed and in a nursing home.  They couldn't show that they had any assets, like a house, or the they would have to use it to pay the nursing home.  We signed a paper giving us the house equally between my sister and I.  The house was long paid for.  My mother still paid whatever taxes there were, the utilities, etc.  but it didn't show up as an asset for them.  She lived there until she died, ironically before my father did.  When my mother passed on, all my five siblings and I divided the proceeds from the house equally.  We would not have thought to do anything differently.
> 
> So this type of thing can work out.  I guess everyone needs to act like adults and not spoiled children.



It was my understanding that a home is exempt from Medicaid's "asset limit" and Medicaid does not require it to be sold to pay for long-term care.  

I don't expect my children to "act like spoiled children" at all; I just don't want to burden them with unnecessary taxes and insurance payments on MY house.   As long as I am capable of handling my business I intend to do so.   To each their own.


----------



## Lara

C'est Moi said:


> ...my children, I just don't want to burden them with unnecessary taxes and insurance payments on MY house.   As long as I am capable of handling my business I intend to do so.   To each their own.


That's nice C'estMoi that you are handling things while you're capable. I'm sure most of us, who are capable, are handling our own affairs...as am I. But this thread is about seniors who are no longer capable and "need to cut their expenses in order to maintain their standard of living". 

If the kids are unable to take part in this plan or just don't want to get involved, then it won't work. It will work however if the kids look at it as a lucrative investment for themselves while helping their parents have quality of life in their later years...and if the kids are able. It's not for everybody. 

The kids WILL end up with a house (paid for by their parents hopefully) when their parents die. It's smart for them to maintain that investment to sell for the fair market value after their parent(s) is gone while also helping their parent(s) live at home as long as possible (another savings of hospital bills and nursing home bills).


----------



## Giantsfan1954

The rented house we lived in when my daughter was born was owned by a lovely  elderly lady that was related to our landlord...
She was an absolute sweetheart, she would bring over food,offer to babysit and was just a joy.One day a man knocked on her door with paperwork and simply told her,this is my house now,your daughter sold it to me and proceeded to tell her she had a week to clear out. Her son lived nearby and she moved into his home but she lost her independence and passed shortly after.
In NYS it's illegal to transfer a property within 7 years of an admission to a long term care facility,it is considered fraud,an attempt to hide assets.
Not sure where the information came from in that post but any financial planner will tell you they're  both very bad advice.


----------



## StarSong

Giantsfan1954 said:


> In NYS it's illegal to transfer a property within 7 years of an admission to a long term care facility,it is considered fraud,an attempt to hide assets.
> Not sure where the information came from in that post but any financial planner will tell you they're  both very bad advice.



I've looked into this a little bit, and GiantFan, you're not kidding when you say this is very bad advice.  Anyone considering this would be well advised to consult  attorneys and financial planners who specialize in elder matters, plus do plenty of other research.  

C'est Moi is correct in her statement about a person's residence being exempt from the Medicaid's asset limit.  

IMHO, transferring a house or other assets to preserve an estate or avoid paying one's own medical expenses is no different morally or ethically than welfare, food stamp or other fraud against governmental agencies.     

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/medicaid/look-back-period.html


----------



## Aunt Bea

StarSong said:


> IMHO, transferring a house or other assets to preserve an estate or avoid paying one's own medical expenses is no different morally or ethically than welfare, food stamp or other fraud against governmental agencies.



I agree 100%!


----------



## Kitties

I have no kids. This is something that could work for some if all are in agreement but I don't think it's a very common way to go.


----------



## Giantsfan1954

My last landlord was a social worker in a nursing home,I believe if there is a surviving spouse living in the residence it can't be attached for the bill or medicaid.


----------



## StarSong

Giantsfan1954 said:


> My last landlord was a social worker in a nursing home,I believe if there is a surviving spouse living in the residence it can't be attached for the bill or medicaid.



I don't know about other states, but in CA even if there's no surviving spouse in the residence, up to $750K is exempted.  I believe that with a surviving spouse that asset exemption doesn't have a ceiling.


----------



## Butterfly

StarSong said:


> I've looked into this a little bit, and GiantFan, you're not kidding when you say this is very bad advice.  Anyone considering this would be well advised to consult  attorneys and financial planners who specialize in elder matters, plus do plenty of other research.
> 
> C'est Moi is correct in her statement about a person's residence being exempt from the Medicaid's asset limit.
> 
> *IMHO, transferring a house or other assets to preserve an estate or avoid paying one's own medical expenses is no different morally or ethically than welfare, food stamp or other fraud against governmental agencies.
> *
> https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/medicaid/look-back-period.html



I agree -- cheating is cheating.


----------



## Butterfly

Another thing to think about -- if your kids own the house and you pay rent to them, the rent is taxable income to them.  IRS doesn't care about family relationships re rental income -- rental income is rental income, and if they don't report it and pay taxes on it they can be in deep doo-doo with IRS. 

If I were the adult child, I wouldn't want to be in the situation we're discussing, either.  Eversomuch easier to just step in and help mom as needed, rather than all the legal gyrations.  If you trust them enough to give them your most valuable asset, you should trust them to help you as needed.


----------



## JimW

DaveA said:


> Sorry folks - -too late for us.  We gave the our home to our youngest daughter back in 1995 and our 2 families have lived there ever since. At that time we retained a life lease and an agreement that if the property was sold during our lifetime the amount would be split evenly. It's a home that has never been out of our family and for most of it's lifetime has housed 2 generations.  You all know your family as I do mine.  It's been 23 years now, the grandkids were born during that time and are now in college and high school.
> 
> We've been able to travel, sometimes being away from home for 6 or 7 months of the year.  Never a worry about the property and in accepting the home the kids also took on all expenses to do with it.  Heat, electric, taxes, maintenance, etc., so we have no living expenses in that regard.
> 
> Would I recommend this to others - -probably not as in many families it would create bitterness amongst the other children and some folks sadly, don't seem to get along that well with their off spring.  It has been a God-send for us and probably one of the best life decisions that  we've made.  No problems have arisen and being surrounded by family is, IMHO, far preferable to finishing my days sitting among a group of old timers like myself with whom I have no connection. We all make choices and sometimes they work and sometimes not.  We have been lucky with ours.
> 
> At almost 85, I haven't much time left, nor my wife who's 82.  I hope my end will come in the  same bedroom that we presently use.  My grand-dad and mom both finished their days in that same room. My grand-mother in the hospital and my dad on the front lawn while
> mowing.  Since being built in 1921 our home has never left the family or been sold - -only handed down from one generation to the next. I





Meanderer said:


> What a great family story, Dave!   It seems that your "lump of coal"turned into a "fabulous diamond"!   Thanks for sharing it with us!



I agree, great story Dave!


----------



## hearlady

RadishRose said:


> Anything can go wrong sometimes, that's for sure. I'm thinking these suggestions automatically assume everyone involved is on board and relationships are solid and stable enough to consider these scenarios. Something I'll think about later.


It's an interesting consideration.


----------



## C'est Moi

Butterfly said:


> Another thing to think about -- if your kids own the house and you pay  rent to them, the rent is taxable income to them.  IRS doesn't care  about family relationships re rental income -- rental income is rental  income, and if they don't report it and pay taxes on it they can be in  deep doo-doo with IRS.
> 
> If I were the adult child, I wouldn't want to be in the situation we're discussing, either.  Eversomuch easier to just step in and help mom as needed, rather than all the legal gyrations.  If you trust them enough to give them your most valuable asset, you should trust them to help you as needed.



This is the point I was trying to make earlier; I don't want to burden my children with unnecessary expenses on my behalf.   Thankfully I am not in a situation where I need any assistance, but I know I could depend on them if I were.


----------



## StarSong

C'est Moi said:


> This is the point I was trying to make earlier; I don't want to burden my children with unnecessary expenses on my behalf.   Thankfully I am not in a situation where I need any assistance, but I know I could depend on them if I were.



Ditto.  How fortunate we are in that regard, CM.


----------



## KingsX

.

It's all a matter of perspective...

From time to time HGTV would have a show about Americans moving to a foreign country to save money.
This irony is...  much of the time, what they paid to buy or rent a house in a third world country was more
expensive than buying/renting in many places in the USA.

.


----------



## wvnewbie

Neighbor years ago suddenly announced / joked that he and his wife were now at the mercy of their only child (daughter) and her husband.  He had me laughing when he said they had to be VERY VERY nice to their daughter or would be living on the streets.  They had turned everything over to the daughter.

Yes, there has to be that "trust" thing.  Interestingly the daughter's husband was the local (small town) owner of the funeral home who had seen both the good and the ugly side of this topic.


----------



## Pookie

I would never turn our home over to our daughter. She could have the best of intentions, but if she or hubby loses a job or gets in a financial bind, I don't want to deal with that.

It's best to trust in what we have done, our home and cars are all paid for, and that is the safest way to go. In a few years, we may sell our home and move into a retirement place and use our investments, savings, Social Security and home sale to keep us comfortable there.

Giving a child a home with a promise for us to live in it is enormously foolish and definitely never sensible. If you want to help your kids get a home, help them with a down payment on their own home; that's what we did.

Kids have no business helping themselves to what you've earned for all your life; your help is what it is to them, and no kid should ever, ever own your home with you still there.

Kids need to understand they are on their own and no, our home is not for her to house us. 

That may be what parents do nowadays, but that will never fly with us. We can make our own decisions.


----------



## manlanc

If you were lucky enough to live in the UK you could rent out a room and pay no tax. This might cover property tax and maintenance or help to do so.

  [h=1]The Rent a Room Scheme[/h]  The Rent a Room Scheme lets you earn up to a threshold of £7,500 per year tax-free from letting out furnished accommodation in your home. This is halved if you share the income with your partner or someone else.
  You can let out as much of your home as you want.
  The upper limit of rent is £7,500 per year tax-free -
  $13592.94 US. 

  Details at < https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/the-rent-a-room-scheme>


----------



## manlanc

*The Rent a Room Scheme*

If you were lucky enough to live in the UK you could rent out a room and pay no tax. This might cover property tax and maintenance or help to do so.

  [h=1]The Rent a Room Scheme[/h]  The Rent a Room Scheme lets you earn up to a threshold of £7,500 per year tax-free from letting out furnished accommodation in your home. This is halved if you share the income with your partner or someone else.
  You can let out as much of your home as you want.
  The upper limit of rent is £7,500 per year tax-free -
  $13592.94 US. 

  Details at < https://www.gov.uk/rent-room-in-your-home/the-rent-a-room-scheme>


----------



## Colleen

KingsX said:


> .
> 
> It's all a matter of perspective...
> 
> From time to time HGTV would have a show about Americans moving to a foreign country to save money.
> This irony is...  much of the time, what they paid to buy or rent a house in a third world country was more
> expensive than buying/renting in many places in the USA.
> 
> .




....and did you know that you DO NOT actually own a home in Mexico? It belongs to the government and you're "renting" it from them for about 20 years but they can take it back at any time! 

My hubby and I watch HGTV International House Hunters and we wonder if these people are still in these countries. There was a couple that wanted to build a hotel in Vietnam (I forget the place) but had never been there before. It was a small island and you had to ferry across to it. The island was a run-down filthy place with just a few "houses" (shacks, really). This couple had 2 small children and the places they looked at to live in were disgusting....but they were "only" $200/month. The one place was a shack with no running water and the toilet was a hole dug in the ground out back. I couldn't imagine taking 2 small children to a place like that. 

Unfortunately, these people that go over to other countries to live because it's "cheaper" are so clueless when they get there and start looking for a place. Most of them want everything they had in the States...big kitchens, bath tubs, outdoor space, etc....and they're disappointed when they have to live in a crackerbox apartment that costs $2000/month!! What's wrong with these people???


----------



## StarSong

Colleen said:


> ....and did you know that you DO NOT actually own a home in Mexico? It belongs to the government and you're "renting" it from them for about 20 years but they can take it back at any time!
> 
> My hubby and I watch HGTV International House Hunters and we wonder if these people are still in these countries. There was a couple that wanted to build a hotel in Vietnam (I forget the place) but had never been there before. It was a small island and you had to ferry across to it. The island was a run-down filthy place with just a few "houses" (shacks, really). This couple had 2 small children and the places they looked at to live in were disgusting....but they were "only" $200/month. The one place was a shack with no running water and the toilet was a hole dug in the ground out back. I couldn't imagine taking 2 small children to a place like that.
> 
> Unfortunately, these people that go over to other countries to live because it's "cheaper" are so clueless when they get there and start looking for a place. Most of them want everything they had in the States...big kitchens, bath tubs, outdoor space, etc....and they're disappointed when they have to live in a crackerbox apartment that costs $2000/month!! What's wrong with these people???



I know several ex-pats who live in Panama and they do so very nicely.  Gorgeous countryside, amazing fishing, spectacular bird-watching, inexpensive housing, low cost of living, inexpensive medical care, low restaurant and food prices, etc.  Yes, there are some sacrifices.  For instance, electricity can be iffy so they have generators in addition to being hooked up to the local power grid.  

These are people who did their homework before moving and it's working out quite well for them.


----------



## KingsX

Colleen said:


> ....and did you know that you DO NOT actually own a home in Mexico? It belongs to the government and you're "renting" it from them for about 20 years but they can take it back at any time!
> 
> My hubby and I watch HGTV International House Hunters and we wonder if these people are still in these countries. There was a couple that wanted to build a hotel in Vietnam (I forget the place) but had never been there before. It was a small island and you had to ferry across to it. The island was a run-down filthy place with just a few "houses" (shacks, really). This couple had 2 small children and the places they looked at to live in were disgusting....but they were "only" $200/month. The one place was a shack with no running water and the toilet was a hole dug in the ground out back. I couldn't imagine taking 2 small children to a place like that.
> 
> Unfortunately, these people that go over to other countries to live because it's "cheaper" are so clueless when they get there and start looking for a place. Most of them want everything they had in the States...big kitchens, bath tubs, outdoor space, etc....and they're disappointed when they have to live in a crackerbox apartment that costs $2000/month!! What's wrong with these people???




Interesting... thanks for posting.   

Many times I have watched HGTV buyers trying to save money spend twice as much in a third world country for less than half the size of my house here in urban North Texas.   Oh, and they always want to live next to all the "shops and restaurants" [so much for "saving money."]

Most of HGTV's US home buyers are spoiled prima donnas  who will cringe at the color of the counter tops but never look at the roof, HVAC or plumbing [not as sexy.]

But the most ironic of all are "tiny house"  buyers who complain it's not roomy enough and the bathroom is too close to the kitchen [duh!]

.


----------



## JB in SC

My limited experience with trusts is that they are designed for wealthy people trying to protect assets above the IRS estate taxation limits, not so much for middle class people trying to save money or escape the Medicaid estate recovery.


----------



## Butterfly

Pookie said:


> I would never turn our home over to our daughter. She could have the best of intentions, but if she or hubby loses a job or gets in a financial bind, I don't want to deal with that.
> 
> It's best to trust in what we have done, our home and cars are all paid for, and that is the safest way to go. In a few years, we may sell our home and move into a retirement place and use our investments, savings, Social Security and home sale to keep us comfortable there.
> 
> Giving a child a home with a promise for us to live in it is enormously foolish and definitely never sensible. If you want to help your kids get a home, help them with a down payment on their own home; that's what we did.
> 
> Kids have no business helping themselves to what you've earned for all your life; your help is what it is to them, and no kid should ever, ever own your home with you still there.
> 
> Kids need to understand they are on their own and no, our home is not for her to house us.
> 
> That may be what parents do nowadays, but that will never fly with us. We can make our own decisions.



Well said, Pookie.  I could not agree more!


----------



## Colleen

My hubby and I were talking about this very subject this morning. I made the comment that if something happened to him first I wasn't sure where I'd go. Thank God we're both very healthy at 71/77 respectively...but who knows?? Anyway, I said I'd probably go back to the town in PA where we lived before we moved here to AZ 4 years ago. He said I would be nuts to go back to cold weather...and, yes, that would be the downside, but it would also be more affordable than AZ. I won't be getting his pension so that would cut my income drastically. I believe I would get his SS and not mine so I would have to be very frugal. 

We talked about all the places we've lived and we did agree to rule them out for various reasons. He said the "kids" (his son and daughter who moved here from CA a couple years ago to be closer to him) would probably look after me, but they are his kids and even though they are "tolerant" of me, I don't expect them, or want them, to take care of me.


----------



## ray188

Colleen said:


> My hubby and I were talking about this very subject this morning. I made the comment that if something happened to him first I wasn't sure where I'd go. Thank God we're both very healthy at 71/77 respectively...but who knows?? Anyway, I said I'd probably go back to the town in PA where we lived before we moved here to AZ 4 years ago. He said I would be nuts to go back to cold weather...and, yes, that would be the downside, but it would also be more affordable than AZ. I won't be getting his pension so that would cut my income drastically. I believe I would get his SS and not mine so I would have to be very frugal.
> 
> We talked about all the places we've lived and we did agree to rule them out for various reasons. He said the "kids" (his son and daughter who moved here from CA a couple years ago to be closer to him) would probably look after me, but they are his kids and even though they are "tolerant" of me, I don't expect them, or want them, to take care of me.


It is very common for women to outlive their husbands and, often, the situation is as you describe yours. We have some friends in that situation. Their solution - becoming "roomies". It has worked - for years.


----------



## Colleen

ray188 said:


> It is very common for women to outlive their husbands and, often, the situation is as you describe yours. We have some friends in that situation. Their solution - becoming "roomies". It has worked - for years.



"Roomies"...with who?? I don't understand


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Not very practical. Do you know how many people can't trust their children with financial and estate matters? I read a story about a son who took over his mother's house and wound up putting her out...she was elderly too. People get very greedy and untrustworthy when money matters surface. Just watch what happens when someone dies and doesn't leave a will. Even for the children who can be trusted...many Gen X'ers today are having such a hard time keeping their heads above water and managing all they have to manage, like someone said...why would they even want that additional headache?


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Uptosnuff said:


> I have a different reaction to this than others on the board.  My sister and I did this for our parents.  This was in the early 1990s.  My father had a MAJOR stroke that left him paralyzed and in a nursing home.  They couldn't show that they had any assets, like a house, or the they would have to use it to pay the nursing home.  We signed a paper giving us the house equally between my sister and I.  The house was long paid for.  My mother still paid whatever taxes there were, the utilities, etc.  but it didn't show up as an asset for them.  She lived there until she died, ironically before my father did.  When my mother passed on, all my five siblings and I divided the proceeds from the house equally.  We would not have thought to do anything differently.
> 
> So this type of thing can work out.  I guess everyone needs to act like adults and not spoiled children.


It's interesting that your mother's house was not counted as an asset since it was "sold". How long before she went into the home did you and your sister acquire the house? Here in Jersey, Medicaid looks back 5 years for all assets and counts them but they do have certain exemptions for homeowners and their spouses still living in the home. When my mother went into a home (I believe it was 2001) they looked back 3 years.  For a few years she insisted that I have her savings bonds put in my name. I resisted for awhile then finally did it. We missed the look back period by about a year when she went in. She had just received an insurance payment from her brother's death policy of more than $26,000 and that was used as her payment for the first few months. N.J. has one of the highest nursing home costs in the country. But it got her acceptance in a very nice place and they opted to keep her there once medicaid kicked in. She passed after being there about 3 years.


----------



## ray188

Colleen said:


> "Roomies"...with who?? I don't understand


With other women in the same situation.


----------



## Colleen

ray188 said:


> with other women in the same situation.



no way!!!


----------



## KingsX

OneEyedDiva said:


> Not very practical. Do you know how many people can't trust their children with financial and estate matters? I read a story about a son who took over his mother's house and wound up putting her out...she was elderly too. People get very greedy and untrustworthy when money matters surface. Just watch what happens when someone dies and doesn't leave a will. Even for the children who can be trusted...many Gen X'ers today are having such a hard time keeping their heads above water and managing all they have to manage, like someone said...why would they even want that additional headache?




Some children have even murdered their parents to get their inheritance early.

Most murders are by someone the victim knows.  

.


----------



## StarSong

Colleen said:


> no way!!!



Why not?  I moved around a lot when in my twenties and had several roommates.  It was a very good way to reduce costs, and by and large we got along extremely well.  My husband is technically my longest term roommate and that's also been highly successful. 

To cope with limited finances I could think of many worse living arrangements than a roommate and very few better ones.


----------



## Butterfly

When you're in dire straits, you gotta do what you gotta do, accept it and make the best of it.  Even a roommate you don't much like beats sleeping under the bridge.


----------



## Colleen

StarSong said:


> Why not?  I moved around a lot when in my twenties and had several roommates.  It was a very good way to reduce costs, and by and large we got along extremely well.  My husband is technically my longest term roommate and that's also been highly successful.
> 
> To cope with limited finances I could think of many worse living arrangements than a roommate and very few better ones.



I'm not going to be destitute. I'm not living with someone I don't know. I don't trust that many people now...why would I trust my life and my belongings to a complete stranger???


----------



## Colleen

Butterfly said:


> When you're in dire straits, you gotta do what you gotta do, accept it and make the best of it.  Even a roommate you don't much like beats sleeping under the bridge.



I highly doubt I'll be forced to "sleep under a bridge" and I disagree a roommate you don't like beats it. Why would I want to live with a total stranger that I have no idea what they're like or what they're capable of doing?? Why would I want to spend the rest of my days with someone I don't like??? YIKES!


----------



## SpicyTweed

Why do you assume a roommate would have to be a complete stranger?  Surely, a widowed elderly person (male or female) would have friends or familiar acquaintances in similar circumstances who would prefer being a roommate to living a solitary existence, as well as saving on living costs.  Surely, one of these people would be compatible to share a home with.


----------



## StarSong

Colleen said:


> I highly doubt I'll be forced to "sleep under a bridge" and I disagree a roommate you don't like beats it. Why would I want to live with a total stranger that I have no idea what they're like or what they're capable of doing?? Why would I want to spend the rest of my days with someone I don't like??? YIKES!



I think people were trying to be reassuring and offer helpful advice because it sounded like you were concerned about your possible future living conditions.


----------



## Colleen

StarSong said:


> I think people were trying to be reassuring and offer helpful advice because it sounded like you were concerned about your possible future living conditions.



I understand and appreciate the concern....really, I do, but I'm not going to be like a lot of widowed women that are scraping to exist. If that would be the case, I'd consider sharing a place with someone. I'd have to REALLY check them out first...and their family and friends. I was raised an only child, so I enjoy being alone. I've also had a lot of bad experiences with people I trusted so I'm very guarded now. I do not open up to any one or associate with any one but my husband and family. I'm happy and I would continue to be a recluse. I'm also very frugal so I'm sure I could manage on my own. It does concern me but living with another person would not be an option for me.

Besides...life is unpredictable...who's to say I'll be the one left behind??


----------



## OneEyedDiva

KingsX said:


> Interesting... thanks for posting.
> 
> Many times I have watched HGTV buyers trying to save money spend twice as much in a third world country for less than half the size of my house here in urban North Texas.   Oh, and they always want to live next to all the "shops and restaurants" [so much for "saving money."]
> 
> Most of HGTV's US home buyers are spoiled prima donnas  who will cringe at the color of the counter tops but never look at the roof, HVAC or plumbing [not as sexy.]
> 
> But the most ironic of all are "tiny house"  buyers who complain it's not roomy enough and the bathroom is too close to the kitchen [duh!]
> 
> .


Some of the things the homebuyers do and say makes no sense at all KingsX. I agree with all the things you pointed out.  I love HGTV home buying episodes near ocean, lake, water, etc.  I've seen the "prima donnas" you're talking about. They also act like they never heard of curtains, drapes or blinds.  "Oooh the neighbors can see right inside our bedroom".  I once saw a family of six choose a tiny house. I saw another mother of 5 I think, with a dog choose a 2 bedroom condo and she had the choice of a bigger place. I have no idea how the *hell* they can live that way. Do you wonder how the young people can afford to pay so much for these houses? We're talking the $800,000 to $1.5 mil range *and* they want to be able to eat out, shop and entertain! One more thing that gets me. Are they *all* coached to say (about the deck or balcony). "I can see myself out here having my morning coffee."  Out of all the shows I've watched, I think there were only about 5 episodes where nobody said it. Who says "morning coffee"? It's coffee or cup of coffee, at least where I'm from.


----------



## KingsX

OneEyedDiva said:


> Some of the things the homebuyers do and say makes no sense at all KingsX. I agree with all the things you pointed out.  I love HGTV home buying episodes near ocean, lake, water, etc.  I've seen the "prima donnas" you're talking about. They also act like they never heard of curtains, drapes or blinds.  "Oooh the neighbors can see right inside our bedroom".  I once saw a family of six choose a tiny house. I saw another mother of 5 I think, with a dog choose a 2 bedroom condo and she had the choice of a bigger place. I have no idea how the *hell* they can live that way. Do you wonder how the young people can afford to pay so much for these houses? We're talking the $800,000 to $1.5 mil range *and* they want to be able to eat out, shop and entertain! One more thing that gets me. Are they *all* coached to say (about the deck or balcony). "I can see myself out here having my morning coffee."  Out of all the shows I've watched, I think there were only about 5 episodes where nobody said it. Who says "morning coffee"? It's coffee or cup of coffee, at least where I'm from.




Yes, all that is HGTV typical.  Also the vast majority of homebuyers want a house where they can "entertain."
I saw a show recently where their own children were thrown under the bus, so they can have a guest room.
Also, in many shows the purchase is centered on what's good for the dog [or cat, but usually it's a dog.]


----------



## Colleen

Also....are these people paid to be on these shows (because that's what it is...show) and to say what they say? What REALLY drives me up the wall is when, at the end of the show, they're "discussing" the 3 houses and they're saying all the negative things about each house and then they choose the house with the most things they hate! I don't know why we even watch. We need to get a life...haha.

Yes...we've wondered how these "kids" can afford a million dollar house just starting out. Are these people even real??? Are they actors??


----------



## KingsX

Colleen said:


> Also....are these people paid to be on these shows (because that's what it is...show) and to say what they say? What REALLY drives me up the wall is when, at the end of the show, they're "discussing" the 3 houses and they're saying all the negative things about each house and then they choose the house with the most things they hate! I don't know why we even watch. We need to get a life...haha.
> 
> Yes...we've wondered how these "kids" can afford a million dollar house just starting out. Are these people even real??? Are they actors??





Those million dollar homes must be on either the east or west coast where real estate is over the top expensive.

I was able to retire early [comfortably with a paid off home] here in Dallas at age 55 and have yet to even see a million dollars [but my net worth is still increasing...  so maybe before I die!]

Btw... I especially like "Love It or List It."  HGTV tried to turn the show over to a younger realtor and designer but the younger people did not have the same great personality and dynamics as the older cast. So now the old cast is back with new shows.

.


----------



## Buckeye

Lara said:


> Things you can do to cut your living expenses without lowering your standard of living:
> 
> 1. Give your house to your children via an Irrevocable Trust. Then rent the house and live there. Have an estate attorney draft the documents and provisions.
> 
> 2. Sell your home to your kids and live there...maybe pay rent, maybe not.
> 
> Gifting or selling your house to your children and then living there is the only option that will both maintain your lifestyle and reduce your costs according to Timothy Speises of the firm, EisnerAmper.
> 
> As long as your children are willing and able to pay for the property taxes, maintenance, repairs, and any remaining mortgage payments, your house costs will be low...maybe even non-existent.



Wouldn’t it be simpler if I just have my son send me a couple of thousand dollars every month??  He can afford it.


----------



## Lethe200

Lara said:


> ...My Will has all my children in a Trust so it would be managed by the trustee...end of any disagreements as the trustee has the last word. But as far as one or two of them falling on hard times and not being able to afford their share of maintenance, and property tax, I can see the problem.


 
Actually, no, the trustee does NOT necessarily have the last word. I saw this first-hand when I worked in a CFP's office. He had a client who was "second-generation", e.g.; his parents had been clients. We'll call him Jim. Jim also became one of our clients, but his sisters were not.

Jim had 2 sisters, both adults. He was financially stable, as was one of his sisters. The youngest sister, let's call her Bea, was not.

As usually happens, the father died first. House was the main asset in their RLT. Mother named Jim as co-trustee. Everybody was fine with him helping manage the house and mid-sized investment account (mostly the life insurance proceeds from father's death).

Bea had very little work experience before marrying; marriage was rocky then went bad. She finally divorced the low-lifer. No job, no alimony, no place to live. Makes perfect sense for her to move back to her parents' home, help aging Mom out, and everybody is fine with the idea. This goes on for about five years.

Then Mom dies. Trust says all 3 kids share equally. Not much money left, but house has zoomed in value. Even with original kitchen and bathrooms, it's easily worth $700K due to desirable location. Hot RE market, no need to do anything but superficially clean to sell it in a week's time, max.

The house essentially IS the trust. It's the only major financial asset. It MUST be disbursed equally to the 3 kids. That is the fiduciary duty of the trustee. Jim is legally liable to the heirs.

Unless you know how to carve up a house like a roast turkey but keep the value intact, this means the house must be sold. There's only one problem:

*Bea refuses to sell. She has no money to buy her siblings out. She flat-out refuses to move. *

Jim and sister #1 try to be reasonable. They are busy people; they have careers and families. Jim has a net worth of almost $4M but it is mostly in RE because he's a rancher; he lives almost 2 hours away from his parents' home. Like most people he has a limited cash flow – he lives comfortably, but not lavishly.

Bea continues to refuse to sell. "We grew up here, I can't bear it to be sold!" Meetings became more acrimonious. Jim is having to maintain the value of the estate because it can't be disbursed so the trust can wind up. Utilities and property taxes are beginning to eat away at the cash.

Bea hires a lawyer. More negotiations. Even the lawyer thinks Bea is being unreasonable. Finally they get Bea to agree to at least *divide up the remaining cash.* Then, she says, she will negotiate on the sale of the house.

The remaining cash was something like $157,859.21. Divided 3 ways, it doesn't come out evenly:

$52,619.73 in 3 equal portions, with 2 cents leftover.

*Bea refused to accept the division. *"It has to be split up exactly into thirds!"

Both Jim and sister #1 said they would give her the extra 2 cents. Just sign the papers, please! At this point it had been going on for almost a year.

*Bea refused again and had the lawyer file suit against her brother for misuse of estate funds.*

This means Jim has to hire a lawyer for the estate (more expenses!) to defend himself.

Jim was trying his best not to be the villain. He had appreciated her helping out with Mom but she was becoming more unreasonable, not less. He had held off filing eviction on his baby sister but at this point he is watching the value of the estate drop. The RE market has suddenly turned downwards. As a fiduciary he cannot no longer keep this as a "family matter."

Bea was evicted after six very nasty months. By now the RE market is definitely in retreat. Bea left a mess; the house had to be cleaned up, repaired, staged, and was finally sold for a much lesser price.

The estate had to bear all the legal and RE expenses, including yet another year's property tax payment.

(BTW, in case you're not aware, a trustee is NOT paid for their time, unless specified in the trust. Thus, Jim spent dozens of hours unpaid over the 18 months.)

End result:
-- $300+K in cash had dwindled to barely over $80K total, to be divided.
-- Instead of clearing $660K, profit from the house fell to $485K.

....and Bea still had yet to pay her legal fees!

Needless to say, the breach is permanent. Neither Jim nor his sister has ever spoken to Bea again. Neither their parents nor they had ever imagined such a thing happening.


----------



## Lethe200

C'est Moi said:


> It was my understanding that a home is exempt from Medicaid's "asset limit" and Medicaid does not require it to be sold to pay for long-term care.



Apparently this is only correct under very specific instances, having to do with original ownership and residency of such.

Medicaid is a state-directed program (states must match in equal amount the Federal government's grant) so *state laws vary greatly.* It is critical you know what your state laws are, and *remain updated on any changes.*

Here is a very thorough article on exempt and non-exempt rules. This applies only to New York State, but it gives a good idea of how Medicaid defines its guidelines:

https://www.cutner.com/medicaid-ass...t-medicaid-trick-question-can-cost-thousands/


----------



## StarSong

Lethe200 said:


> Actually, no, the trustee does NOT necessarily have the last word. I saw this first-hand when I worked in a CFP's office. He had a client who was "second-generation", e.g.; his parents had been clients. We'll call him Jim. Jim also became one of our clients, but his sisters were not.
> 
> Jim had 2 sisters, both adults. He was financially stable, as was one of his sisters. The youngest sister, let's call her Bea, was not.
> 
> As usually happens, the father died first. House was the main asset in their RLT. Mother named Jim as co-trustee. Everybody was fine with him helping manage the house and mid-sized investment account (mostly the life insurance proceeds from father's death).
> 
> Bea had very little work experience before marrying; marriage was rocky then went bad. She finally divorced the low-lifer. No job, no alimony, no place to live. Makes perfect sense for her to move back to her parents' home, help aging Mom out, and everybody is fine with the idea. This goes on for about five years.
> 
> Then Mom dies. Trust says all 3 kids share equally. Not much money left, but house has zoomed in value. Even with original kitchen and bathrooms, it's easily worth $700K due to desirable location. Hot RE market, no need to do anything but superficially clean to sell it in a week's time, max.
> 
> The house essentially IS the trust. It's the only major financial asset. It MUST be disbursed equally to the 3 kids. That is the fiduciary duty of the trustee. Jim is legally liable to the heirs.
> 
> Unless you know how to carve up a house like a roast turkey but keep the value intact, this means the house must be sold. There's only one problem:
> 
> *Bea refuses to sell. She has no money to buy her siblings out. She flat-out refuses to move. *
> 
> Jim and sister #1 try to be reasonable. They are busy people; they have careers and families. Jim has a net worth of almost $4M but it is mostly in RE because he's a rancher; he lives almost 2 hours away from his parents' home. Like most people he has a limited cash flow – he lives comfortably, but not lavishly.
> 
> Bea continues to refuse to sell. "We grew up here, I can't bear it to be sold!" Meetings became more acrimonious. Jim is having to maintain the value of the estate because it can't be disbursed so the trust can wind up. Utilities and property taxes are beginning to eat away at the cash.
> 
> Bea hires a lawyer. More negotiations. Even the lawyer thinks Bea is being unreasonable. Finally they get Bea to agree to at least *divide up the remaining cash.* Then, she says, she will negotiate on the sale of the house.
> 
> The remaining cash was something like $157,859.21. Divided 3 ways, it doesn't come out evenly:
> 
> $52,619.73 in 3 equal portions, with 2 cents leftover.
> 
> *Bea refused to accept the division. *"It has to be split up exactly into thirds!"
> 
> Both Jim and sister #1 said they would give her the extra 2 cents. Just sign the papers, please! At this point it had been going on for almost a year.
> 
> *Bea refused again and had the lawyer file suit against her brother for misuse of estate funds.*
> 
> This means Jim has to hire a lawyer for the estate (more expenses!) to defend himself.
> 
> Jim was trying his best not to be the villain. He had appreciated her helping out with Mom but she was becoming more unreasonable, not less. He had held off filing eviction on his baby sister but at this point he is watching the value of the estate drop. The RE market has suddenly turned downwards. As a fiduciary he cannot no longer keep this as a "family matter."
> 
> Bea was evicted after six very nasty months. By now the RE market is definitely in retreat. Bea left a mess; the house had to be cleaned up, repaired, staged, and was finally sold for a much lesser price.
> 
> The estate had to bear all the legal and RE expenses, including yet another year's property tax payment.
> 
> (BTW, in case you're not aware, a trustee is NOT paid for their time, unless specified in the trust. Thus, Jim spent dozens of hours unpaid over the 18 months.)
> 
> End result:
> -- $300+K in cash had dwindled to barely over $80K total, to be divided.
> -- Instead of clearing $660K, profit from the house fell to $485K.
> 
> ....and Bea still had yet to pay her legal fees!
> 
> Needless to say, the breach is permanent. Neither Jim nor his sister has ever spoken to Bea again. Neither their parents nor they had ever imagined such a thing happening.



The above is a nightmare that benefited only the attorneys.  Sibling "Bea" was a fool.        

I was the trustee of my mother's estate.  The trust documents, which were drawn by a trust attorney specified that I had 100% control over liquidating assets and distribution thereof.  Any lawsuit brought against the trust or trustee (me) by one of my siblings would have triggered an automatic disinheritance of that sibling from the trust and his/her share would have been distributed equally among the remaining heirs. 

We didn't have any disagreements over the estate, but the security having that clause in there made my job a whole lot easier.    

p.s.  My own trust has a similar clause.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

KingsX said:


> Some children have even murdered their parents to get their inheritance early.
> 
> Most murders are by someone the victim knows.
> 
> .


Sadly you are so right KingsX ! :upset:


----------



## OneEyedDiva

KingsX said:


> Yes, all that is HGTV typical.  Also the vast majority of homebuyers want a house where they can "entertain."
> I saw a show recently where their own children were thrown under the bus, so they can have a guest room.
> Also, in many shows the purchase is centered on what's good for the dog [or cat, but usually it's a dog.]


YESS!!  (Re: purchasing for the benefit of their pets). LOL


----------



## Vinny

Sure can. That is what I did. You just need to lower the expenses of the things you do.  I moved from NYC where a 50 year old small two bedroom ranch house sold for $530,000. I bought a larger home with more property on a corner lot with a stucco wall around it for privacy. Cost was $209,000 in Florida. Found money.  No City or State Taxes. Things are cheaper here. I pay $40 a month for lawn and tree maintenance. In NYC I paid over $200 a month for about six months of the year. Property taxes are 10% of what they used to be up north.  Utilities are only $180 a month which includes garbage pickup. I was paying more than twice that up north. Although my retirement income is 40% lower than my past salary and no more bonuses which went into my bank account to save for retirement and is supplementing my Social Security checks.

I am fully retired and still drive the same model car, wear the same clothes, just got a brand new kitchen for the wife and in fact my life is better since I do not have to work and get to enjoy the things I own. My man toys. We also now go out to eat more often and free to travel whenever we want to. Life is better now an I am in a much nicer house, new car every 3 years and no business clothes to wear and other expenses associated with going to work. Then too as you get older medical issues can pop up and limit what you can do. I used to be away on business about 12 weeks of every year. Been to 21 countries and over 26 States. I have no plans to leave this State and no longer have a regular passport.  I am enjoying having all this free time and being able to sleep as late as I want to. I even added to my collections since I got a retirement bonus from my company since I know where all the skeletons are buried.


----------



## C'est Moi

Vinny said:


> Utilities are only $180 a month which includes garbage pickup.


Your utilities are $180 a month on a house in Florida?   Our cable bill is more than that, and don't get me started on electricity for a/c in this heat.  nthego:


----------



## C'est Moi

Hoot N Annie said:


> Wouldn’t it be simpler if I just have my son send me a couple of thousand dollars every month??  He can afford it.



Now this is a plan I can get behind.   We have 5 kids.   :laugh:


----------



## Colleen

Vinny said:


> Sure can. That is what I did. You just need to lower the expenses of the things you do.  I moved from NYC where a 50 year old small two bedroom ranch house sold for $530,000. I bought a larger home with more property on a corner lot with a stucco wall around it for privacy. Cost was $209,000 in Florida. Found money.  No City or State Taxes. Things are cheaper here. I pay $40 a month for lawn and tree maintenance. In NYC I paid over $200 a month for about six months of the year. Property taxes are 10% of what they used to be up north.  Utilities are only $180 a month which includes garbage pickup. I was paying more than twice that up north. Although my retirement income is 40% lower than my past salary and no more bonuses which went into my bank account to save for retirement and is supplementing my Social Security checks.
> 
> I am fully retired and still drive the same model car, wear the same clothes, just got a brand new kitchen for the wife and in fact my life is better since I do not have to work and get to enjoy the things I own. My man toys. We also now go out to eat more often and free to travel whenever we want to. Life is better now an I am in a much nicer house, new car every 3 years and no business clothes to wear and other expenses associated with going to work. Then too as you get older medical issues can pop up and limit what you can do. I used to be away on business about 12 weeks of every year. Been to 21 countries and over 26 States. I have no plans to leave this State and no longer have a regular passport.  I am enjoying having all this free time and being able to sleep as late as I want to. I even added to my collections since I got a retirement bonus from my company since I know where all the skeletons are buried.



Sounds like you'll be able to actually enjoy retirement now  We thought about FL when we decided to move from PA 4 years ago but decided against the bugs and humidity. We'd already lived in CA and TX and didn't want to go back to either of those states so we decided on AZ. We live in a small town and wide open spaces with gorgeous mountain views 360 degrees. Low humidity was a deciding factor as my husband had a serious fall 6 years ago and arthritis is a killer for him when the cold and humidity would set in when we lived in PA. As far as living expenses, it's not the cheapest (TX and PA were the cheapest) but it's not bad because housing prices are very low in our area.


----------



## KingsX

Colleen said:


> Sounds like you'll be able to actually enjoy retirement now  We thought about FL when we decided to move from PA 4 years ago but decided against the bugs and humidity. We'd already lived in CA and TX and didn't want to go back to either of those states so we decided on AZ. We live in a small town and wide open spaces with gorgeous mountain views 360 degrees. Low humidity was a deciding factor as my husband had a serious fall 6 years ago and arthritis is a killer for him when the cold and humidity would set in when we lived in PA. As far as living expenses, it's not the cheapest (TX and PA were the cheapest) but it's not bad because housing prices are very low in our area.




Texas is a big place.  Different areas of Texas have different climates.

I was born in far western Texas which has an arid climate much like New Mexico and Arizona.


----------



## Colleen

KingsX said:


> Texas is a big place.  Different areas of Texas have different climates.
> 
> I was born in far western Texas which has an arid climate much like New Mexico and Arizona.



We lived in Victoria so humidity was high because we were closer to the Gulf.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Vinny said:


> Sure can. That is what I did. You just need to lower the expenses of the things you do.  I moved from NYC where a 50 year old small two bedroom ranch house sold for $530,000. I bought a larger home with more property on a corner lot with a stucco wall around it for privacy. Cost was $209,000 in Florida. Found money.  No City or State Taxes. Things are cheaper here. I pay $40 a month for lawn and tree maintenance. In NYC I paid over $200 a month for about six months of the year. Property taxes are 10% of what they used to be up north.  Utilities are only $180 a month which includes garbage pickup. I was paying more than twice that up north. Although my retirement income is 40% lower than my past salary and no more bonuses which went into my bank account to save for retirement and is supplementing my Social Security checks.
> 
> I am fully retired and still drive the same model car, wear the same clothes, just got a brand new kitchen for the wife and in fact my life is better since I do not have to work and get to enjoy the things I own. My man toys. We also now go out to eat more often and free to travel whenever we want to. Life is better now an I am in a much nicer house, new car every 3 years and no business clothes to wear and other expenses associated with going to work. Then too as you get older medical issues can pop up and limit what you can do. I used to be away on business about 12 weeks of every year. Been to 21 countries and over 26 States. I have no plans to leave this State and no longer have a regular passport.  I am enjoying having all this free time and being able to sleep as late as I want to. I even added to my collections since I got a retirement bonus from my company since I know where all the skeletons are buried.


Sweet! (the change from NYC to Fla).I see you're starting to enjoy your retirement now...that's nice.


----------



## NewRetire18

To cut living expenses, I now do all the cooking. That really changed the way my wife buys groceries; now she eliminates anything that can't be cooked other than being boiled, and that really saves money. And with the enormous amount of leftovers from each meal, we won't even have to go shopping for at least a couple of months. I don't even cook that much; she always says it's filling as she rushes from the dining room. Another Plus is that we no longer have to spend $$ and cook for friends- my cooking has apparently helped them too, as they told me that last time they declined my meals that they no longer get hungry. Once I start getting my eyesight back, maybe I'll put together a cookbook to share with you all.


----------



## Colleen

NewRetire18 said:


> To cut living expenses, I now do all the cooking. That really changed the way my wife buys groceries; now she eliminates anything that can't be cooked other than being boiled, and that really saves money. And with the enormous amount of leftovers from each meal, we won't even have to go shopping for at least a couple of months. I don't even cook that much; she always says it's filling as she rushes from the dining room. Another Plus is that we no longer have to spend $$ and cook for friends- my cooking has apparently helped them too, as they told me that last time they declined my meals that they no longer get hungry. Once I start getting my eyesight back, maybe I'll put together a cookbook to share with you all.




Haha!! Thanks for the cookbook offer, but I'll pass


----------



## mathjak107

the problem is cost cutting has a bottom and when expenses you can't control keep rising , eventually you see why not only is cost cutting importnt but growing income as well is very key .

generally in all these frugal living forums to much focus goes  in to lowering expenses and not enough on making sure investments can produce enough income to keep up once there is nothing left to cut except to down grade an entire lifestyle .


----------



## KingsX

mathjak107 said:


> the problem is cost cutting has a bottom and when expenses you can't control keep rising , eventually you see why not only is cost cutting importnt but growing income as well is very key .
> 
> generally in all these frugal living forums to much focus goes  in to lowering expenses and not enough on making sure investments can produce enough income to keep up once there is nothing left to cut except to down grade an entire lifestyle .





"Cost cutting"  means different things to different people.

For one person it might mean cutting cable TV and not eating out at restaurants.

To another person it might mean cutting golf from three to two times a week...
and vacationing in the Caribbean instead of the French Riviera.


----------



## Aunt Bea

It's still an inescapable fact that you can only cut your expenses to the bone once and then the cost of the bone starts to increase.


----------



## Colleen

mathjak107 said:


> the problem is cost cutting has a bottom and when expenses you can't control keep rising , eventually you see why not only is cost cutting importnt but growing income as well is very key .
> 
> generally in all these frugal living forums to much focus goes  in to lowering expenses and not enough on making sure investments can produce enough income to keep up once there is nothing left to cut except to down grade an entire lifestyle .



All well and good advice, but a lot of us don't have investments because we never had the money in the beginning or never had an "advisor" to tell us when we needed to do. I think there are more of us "average" middle-class seniors that lived from paycheck to paycheck and didn't have anything left over to "invest". Now, it's too late to get into the game and we are still living from paycheck to paycheck.

Therefore, cutting costs and expenses are the only ways we can keep afloat. I don't need much and I could care less about going to the Caribbean. If that's your "thing"...go for it. I like living simple.


----------



## mathjak107

Colleen said:


> All well and good advice, but a lot of us don't have investments because we never had the money in the beginning or never had an "advisor" to tell us when we needed to do. I think there are more of us "average" middle-class seniors that lived from paycheck to paycheck and didn't have anything left over to "invest". Now, it's too late to get into the game and we are still living from paycheck to paycheck.
> 
> Therefore, cutting costs and expenses are the only ways we can keep afloat. I don't need much and I could care less about going to the Caribbean. If that's your "thing"...go for it. I like living simple.



all well and good but with each cost cutting as expenses rise lifestyle does take a hit then.

which goes back to the point that in retirement you can only cut costs to a certain level and then without planning around increasing income any way you can ,life style must take a hit. Something you wanted has to go.


----------



## KingsX

.

A few years ago a friend was complaining that ice tea had gone up to over $2 at her favorite restaurant.   
I told her that restaurants make a lot of profit on beverages and that I always bring bottled water because
I don't usually drink when I eat,  restaurant ice machines are infamous for not being clean, and I am frugal
and frankly the ice tea is not worth it.   She said she'd  be "embarrassed" to bring bottled water to a restaurant.
I told her,  I do it all the time and no one cares.  But for her, what other people might think is very important.
Fast forward a few years... she has declared bankruptcy.  Which was the best thing for her to do in her dire
financial situation. But even then, she was worried about what others might think of her. 

I am so glad none of my decisions [financial or otherwise] are influenced by what others might think.


----------



## StarSong

KingsX said:


> .
> 
> A few years ago a friend was complaining that ice tea had gone up to over $2 at her favorite restaurant.
> I told her that restaurants make a lot of profit on beverages and that I always bring bottled water because
> I don't usually drink when I eat,  restaurant ice machines are infamous for not being clean, and I am frugal
> and frankly the ice tea is not worth it.   She said she'd  be "embarrassed" to bring bottled water to a restaurant.
> I told her,  I do it all the time and no one cares.  But for her, what other people might think is very important.
> Fast forward a few years... she has declared bankruptcy.  Which was the best thing for her to do in her dire
> financial situation. But even then, she was worried about what others might think of her.
> 
> I am so glad none of my decisions [financial or otherwise] are influenced by what others might think.



I'm surprised that restaurants don't have a policy against people bringing in outside beverages (other than for very young children or medical conditions).  I generally order ice water when dining out and have never gotten sick from eating - or drinking - at a restaurant.  

Bottom line - if I didn't have sufficient confidence in restaurants' cleanliness to order ice water, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about the rest of their food-handling practices and would avoid dining out altogether.


----------



## KingsX

StarSong said:


> I'm surprised that restaurants don't have a policy against people bringing in outside beverages (other than for very young children or medical conditions).  I generally order ice water when dining out and have never gotten sick from eating - or drinking - at a restaurant.
> 
> Bottom line - if I didn't have sufficient confidence in restaurants' cleanliness to order ice water, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about the rest of their food-handling practices and would avoid dining out altogether.




I've been bringing bottled water into restaurants for decades and at no time did anyone care.  
But if they had,  I would have left and never returned.  There are plenty of restaurants in the 
DFW area...  lots of competition...  I doubt they would intentionally insult a customer.

Ice machines are infamous for harboring mold and bacteria...  even home ice makers.  

 As for eating out.... I tend to stay away from food not cooked and served hot.

.


----------



## mathjak107

if i ever had to resort to bringing my own water then i would not be going in to someones business to eat out . hey if you can do that great , but my opinion is  if  someone has to resort to bringing a bottle of water  then  they either can't afford to be eating  out or shouldn't be eating out  .. restaurants always sell bottled water so in either case i don't buy in to that .  . sorry but that is how i feel about it.


----------



## mathjak107

StarSong said:


> I'm surprised that restaurants don't have a policy against people bringing in outside beverages (other than for very young children or medical conditions). I generally order ice water when dining out and have never gotten sick from eating - or drinking - at a restaurant.
> 
> Bottom line - if I didn't have sufficient confidence in restaurants' cleanliness to order ice water, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about the rest of their food-handling practices and would avoid dining out altogether.





when we travel i always use bottled water . but i buy it where we eat . i would never walk in with my own bottle of water to drink in their establishment . not even in mexico or cuba  did   i or would i ever resort to that . .


----------



## KingsX

mathjak107 said:


> if i ever had to resort to bringing my own water then i would not be going in to someones business to eat out . hey if you can do that great , but my opinion is  if  someone has to resort to bringing a bottle of water  then  they either can't afford to be eating  out .. restaurants always sell bottled water so in either case i don't buy in to that .  . sorry but that is how i feel about it.




For the reasons I posted,  bringing my own bottled water is my personal preference.  
Often I don't even open the bottled water because as I also posted,  I usually don't
 drink when I eat.  I couldn't  care less what others think, least of all you.

.


----------



## mathjak107

well when you post on public forums , expect to get opinions and  answers you may not like .


----------



## RadishRose

I have heard that the slice of lemon placed in the glass of water at some restaurants can be full of bacteria if the lemons have sat out too long. I always ask not to put the lemon in my water.


----------



## KingsX

mathjak107 said:


> well when you post on public forums , expect to get opinions and  answers you may not like .





Likewise they should expect to be rebuked.


----------



## mathjak107

it goes with the territory . but if  anyone rebuttal's  things it should be based on facts , logic and makes sense .


----------



## Aunt Bea

KingsX said:


> For the reasons I posted, bringing my own bottled water is my personal preference.
> Often I don't even open the bottled water because as I also posted, I usually don't
> drink when I eat.* I couldn't care less what others think, least of all you.
> *
> .



SMH, That's just wrong.


----------



## KingsX

Aunt Bea said:


> SMH, That's just wrong.




Not when one knows the history of a certain poster.


----------



## mathjak107

If something does not make sense it does not make sense. If you post things that don’ t add up I will say so, people here know my posts. I use facts  .

You can hold off ordering a bottle of water if you are not thirsty  just as you don’t open yours if you don’t want it. But to bring your own bottle of water to a restaurant is something most of us would not do.


----------



## AZ Jim

deleted by originator...


----------



## mathjak107

C'est Moi said:


> It was my understanding that a home is exempt from Medicaid's "asset limit" and Medicaid does not require it to be sold to pay for long-term care.
> 
> I don't expect my children to "act like spoiled children" at all; I just don't want to burden them with unnecessary taxes and insurance payments on MY house.   As long as I am capable of handling my business I intend to do so.   To each their own.



a house is only a protected asset if held in personal names . any living  revocable trust  un-protects it . 

the trust keeps the house from going going through probate  but what happens is the value of that house now counts towards qualifying for medicaid . many made this mistake and now have to sell the house , spend down the cash  they got in order to qualify for medicaid .

so while most states will only go after probated assets in recovery  and the house in the trust won't be probated , you just  can't qualify for medicaid in the first place in this case with the house in a living  trust since it now counts as an asset that has to be spent down for care first ..


----------



## mathjak107

there is a reason wall street looks at profits and revenue . profits can come from cost cutting . but once there is nothing to cut and expenses rise it takes growing revenue to avoid failure or else down sizing is in order . it applies to our lives as well . lifestyles will take a hit  once costs bottom and expenses rise unless income increases .  there is no magic here .


----------



## mathjak107

StarSong said:


> I've looked into this a little bit, and GiantFan, you're not kidding when you say this is very bad advice.  Anyone considering this would be well advised to consult  attorneys and financial planners who specialize in elder matters, plus do plenty of other research.
> 
> C'est Moi is correct in her statement about a person's residence being exempt from the Medicaid's asset limit.
> 
> IMHO, transferring a house or other assets to preserve an estate or avoid paying one's own medical expenses is no different morally or ethically than welfare, food stamp or other fraud against governmental agencies.
> 
> https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/medicaid/look-back-period.html



why do you think medicaid trusts and all these tools and laws exist  that let one preserve assets ?   

for the same reason we have all these tools and tax laws that let you reduce taxes .


your fair  share of taxes is what ever you can legally reduce them to using the laws and tools purposely left for that purpose .

it would be very easy to make look back 20 years or do away with medicaid trusts if the courts wanted to . but they can't nor want to .

some of the tools are :

making medicaid approved family loans  -protects up to 50% of assets .

irrevocable medicaid  trusts

long term care insurance

hybrid life insurance policy's with long term care links

right of refusal

and a lot more .

the last thing states want is to have states full of impoverished seniors .  by depleting assets down to what is impoverishment for the stay at home spouse the states end up with two people on public assistance .

many states are trying to come up with ways for the stay at home spouse to retain more assets not less . states now have partnership plans for long term care . you take 3 years insurance and when insurance runs out they have you hand medicaid the bills .

in our state a partnership plan protects 100% of your assets from any recovery and we have no income limits for the stay at home spouse  once medicaid pays .  while we offer 100% asset protection in ny  as an option , other states offer dollar for dollar protection . if they spend 300k as an example on your care 300k in assets is protected .

most nice  homes will take medicaid assignment in our area if you paid your own way for 3 years .

florida , ny and CT  courts have been upholding a spouses right to say no , and negotiations as to a fair cost are becoming the norm . a ct high court judge said he will not impoverish the seniors in his state  and ordered medicaid to negotiate prices that do not hurt the stay at home spouse . ny and florida have followed  .

our elder law /estate attorney is one of the biggest in ny . they have no recovery cases , only negotiating costs at this point .

so all these things are purposely left in place to be utilized .

https://www.elderlawanswers.com/medicaid-spousal-refusal-just-say-no-12156


----------



## mathjak107

Lara said:


> Things you can do to cut your living expenses without lowering your standard of living:
> 
> 1. Give your house to your children via an Irrevocable Trust. Then rent the house and live there. Have an estate attorney draft the documents and provisions.
> 
> 2. Sell your home to your kids and live there...maybe pay rent, maybe not.
> 
> Gifting or selling your house to your children and then living there is the only option that will both maintain your lifestyle and reduce your costs according to Timothy Speises of the firm, EisnerAmper.
> 
> As long as your children are willing and able to pay for the property taxes, maintenance, repairs, and any remaining mortgage payments, your house costs will be low...maybe even non-existent.




just terrible advice on so many levels .


----------



## StarSong

mathjak107 said:


> a* house is only a protected asset if held in personal names . any living  revocable trust  un-protects it *.
> 
> the trust keeps the house from going going through probate  but what happens is the value of that house now counts towards qualifying for medicaid . many made this mistake and now have to sell the house , spend down the cash  they got in order to qualify for medicaid .
> 
> so while most states will only go after probated assets in recovery  and the house in the trust won't be probated , you just  can't qualify for medicaid in the first place in this case with the house in a living  trust since it now counts as an asset that has to be spent down for care first ..



Wow!  I did not know this.  Guess it's time to talk to our attorney about taking our house out of our living trust and into joint tenancy.


----------



## mathjak107

This is why you want only elder law attorneys and not general practitioners


----------



## StarSong

mathjak107 said:


> This is why you want only elder law attorneys and not general practitioners



We have a trust attorney who is roughly 60 years old.  His specialty is estate planning, trust & probate.  I shot him an email about this after reading your post above and doing a little internet research.


----------



## Butterfly

mathjak107 said:


> This is why you want only elder law attorneys and not general practitioners



I worked as a paralegal for nearly 50 years, and know from experience that many people do not realize, or do not want to accept, that attorneys specialize almost as much as doctors.  We had clients that didn't want to hear it or even got offended when we told them we could not represent them in a particular matter because our expertise was not in the field they needed.  You don't want your general practice family attorney tackling complicated trust and estate or tax matters any more than you want your family practice physician doing your heart transplant.


----------



## mathjak107

you see people trying to save money all the time even doing these complex and word sensitive documents like wills and trusts all the time .

in my life time we already experienced 2x the effects of poorly constructed wills that ended up costing us a lot of money .

this is another area that if people think the cost of good advice is expensive ,wait and see what cheap cost


----------



## StarSong

mathjak107 said:


> you see people trying to save money all the  time even doing these complex and word sensitive documents like wills  and trusts all the time .
> 
> in my life time we already experienced 2x the effects of poorly constructed wills that ended up costing us a lot of money .
> 
> this is another area that if people think the cost of good advice is expensive ,wait and see what cheap cost



I  agree with both MJ and Butterfly about the value of good legal advice -  my mother's trust was written by the same attorney who did ours and her  (well over $1.5 M estate) went through without a hitch, even though she  excluded one of her children via an amendment.    



Butterfly said:


> I worked as a paralegal for nearly 50 years, and know from experience that many people do not realize, or do not want to accept, that attorneys specialize almost as much as doctors.  We had clients that didn't want to hear it or even got offended when we told them we could not represent them in a particular matter because our expertise was not in the field they needed.  You don't want your general practice family attorney tackling complicated trust and estate or tax matters any more than you want your family practice physician doing your heart transplant.



So you're recommending both a trust attorney and an elder law attorney?   Sigh...  I would think that when we updated our trust (only 3 years  ago) this would have been a reasonable conversation for him to have with  us, especially since his rates are not low by any means ($1800 for a simple, straightforward update for an uncomplicated trust, the largest asset being our home).   

To further your analogy, while I wouldn't want or expect my GP doing a heart transplant, I _would _expect that in consideration of my age he would have done some cursory checks on my cardio vascular system and suggested I see a specialist if things were a little wonky there.  I shouldn't have to diagnose my own symptoms on an internet forum, if you get my drift.


----------



## mathjak107

StarSong said:


> I  agree with both MJ and Butterfly about the value of good legal advice -  my mother's trust was written by the same attorney who did ours and her  (well over $1.5 M estate) went through without a hitch, even though she  excluded one of her children via an amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're recommending both a trust attorney and an elder law attorney?   Sigh...  I would think that when we updated our trust (only 3 years  ago) this would have been a reasonable conversation for him to have with  us, especially since his rates are not low by any means ($1800 for a simple, straightforward update for an uncomplicated trust, the largest asset being our home).
> 
> To further your analogy, while I wouldn't want or expect my GP doing a heart transplant, I _would _expect that in consideration of my age he would have done some cursory checks on my cardio vascular system and suggested I see a specialist if things were a little wonky there.  I shouldn't have to diagnose my own symptoms on an internet forum, if you get my drift.



usually an estate attorney does elder law too.

we did 2 wills. 2 disclaimer trusts and healthcare proxies and poa and it was 4800. The disclaimer trusts were very costly. Now that ny is the same as the federal amount for passing tax free we don’t even need them anymore


----------



## StarSong

mathjak107 said:


> usually an estate attorney does elder law too.
> 
> we did 2wills. 2 disclaimer trusts and healthcare proxies and poa and it was 4800. The disclaimer trusts were very costly. Now that ny is the same as the federal amount for passing tax free *we don’t even need them anymore*



Without your trust your estate would have to go through probate though, correct?


----------



## mathjak107

no , everything we have is beneficiary ...... no probate .

we needed the disclaimer trust because at the time ny had only a 2 million dollar estate tax exemption and if you went over by 5% you just did not pay on the overage you paid the whole tax from dollar 1 . it was a joke how they did it . so the surviving spouse had up to 9 months to elect to throw a switch and split the estate in to 2 with 1/2 in an irrevocable trust so 2x could pass .

today ny is over 5 million so we don't need it right now . i hope markets do that well  and one day one of us has to throw that switch .


----------



## mathjak107

StarSong said:


> Without your trust your estate would have to go through probate though, correct?




i pulled all money from vanguard  . 

they deleted all beneficiaries on joint accounts without any notification . we only found out because they re-did their website and it presents a things to do list .

it showed add beneficiaries and we knew we did it .

well i tried adding them and it gave an error so i contacted them .

apparently in their judgement common deaths are not common enough and in the event of one they prefer you use a trust .

which by the way they just happen to be promoting their trust dept .

we don't need a trust or want a trust so the only option was to break up the joint accounts in to individual accounts and add beneficiaries back . no thanks ..

fidelity could not believe vanguard did that , our rep had to confirm it for themselves it was so stupid .

we ended up pulling everything out and going to chase to get the private client perks . they too were surprised vanguard tried to push us in to trusts .

on top of that i experience the worst customer service ever from them . getting passed around like a hot potato when i had an acat transfer question .

instead of taking the info like fidelity does and getting someone on the line or someone to call back , they just kept passing us off calling different numbers .

they finally passed us to a number that no one ever answered . for laughs we left the multiple phones we tried calling in on where we got a message to hold for the next rep and 1 hour and 15 minutes later we stopped counting and hung up .

in my opinion they suck!!!!!!!


----------



## Butterfly

StarSong said:


> I  agree with both MJ and Butterfly about the value of good legal advice -  my mother's trust was written by the same attorney who did ours and her  (well over $1.5 M estate) went through without a hitch, even though she  excluded one of her children via an amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> So you're recommending both a trust attorney and an elder law attorney?   Sigh...  I would think that when we updated our trust (only 3 years  ago) this would have been a reasonable conversation for him to have with  us, especially since his rates are not low by any means ($1800 for a simple, straightforward update for an uncomplicated trust, the largest asset being our home).
> 
> To further your analogy, while I wouldn't want or expect my GP doing a heart transplant, I _would _expect that in consideration of my age he would have done some cursory checks on my cardio vascular system and suggested I see a specialist if things were a little wonky there.  I shouldn't have to diagnose my own symptoms on an internet forum, if you get my drift.



No, not two different attorneys -- just don't expect an attorney with a general practice to do complicated stuff like trusts.  As someone else said, elder law attorneys and trust and estate attorneys generally do both.

Reputable attorneys will tell you when you are out of their depth, but my experience is that many people don't understand that just because you an attorney doesn't mean you practice in all areas of the law -- thus the "heart transplant" thing.  Sorry if I was misleading.


----------



## Butterfly

StarSong said:


> Without your trust your estate would have to go through probate though, correct?



No.  All my stuff except my house is "beneficiary" also,  My house is on a Transfer on Death deed (which not all states have), so that upon filing of proof of my death, i.e., a death certificate, the house automatically transfers to my son, thus avoiding probate.  The TOD deed can be revoked or altered by me as long as I am alive and does not affect my ability to sell or whatever else, the house.

My personal belief is that with a bit of planning most (at least those of us without minor children or a beneficiary who is incompetent to manage his/her own affairs) of us can avoid the trust or will-to-probate thing, which is expensive and time consuming.  If property passes through a will, it must be probated, at least in my state it does.


----------



## Butterfly

mathjak107 said:


> you see people trying to save money all the time even doing these complex and word sensitive documents like wills and trusts all the time .
> 
> in my life time we already experienced 2x the effects of poorly constructed wills that ended up costing us a lot of money .
> 
> *this is another area that if people think the cost of good advice is expensive ,wait and see what cheap cost*



A big fat "AMEN!" to that!


----------



## mathjak107

StarSong said:


> We have a trust attorney who is roughly 60 years old.  His specialty is estate planning, trust & probate.  I shot him an email about this after reading your post above and doing a little internet research.


did he ever get back to you ?


----------



## fuzzybuddy

Before doing anything, get legal advice. What works well in one state is illegal in another. And states are always changing the rules to squeeze out every last cent they can.


----------



## StarSong

mathjak107 said:


> did he ever get back to you ?



Hi MJ, yes, he did.  He said we had assets that would be affected earlier than our house, so basically an answer that's a non-answer.  He's pro LTC insurance, which we opted against and are not interested in revisiting that particular decision.  

I recently spoke to an attorney friend who suggested we have a consult with an elder law attorney, so that will be our next step.  It may behoove us to move our house out of the trust and into Joint Tenancy.  Yes, we'd have to deal with probate if we died at the same time, but that's a risk we're willing to take.  

As FB said, laws vary from state to state.


----------



## Uptosnuff

mmm


----------



## OneEyedDiva

mathjak107 said:


> i pulled all money from vanguard  .
> 
> they deleted all beneficiaries on joint accounts without any notification . we only found out because they re-did their website and it presents a things to do list .
> 
> it showed add beneficiaries and we knew we did it .
> 
> well i tried adding them and it gave an error so i contacted them .
> 
> apparently in their judgement common deaths are not common enough and in the event of one they prefer you use a trust .
> 
> which by the way they just happen to be promoting their trust dept .
> 
> we don't need a trust or want a trust so the only option was to break up the joint accounts in to individual accounts and add beneficiaries back . no thanks ..
> 
> fidelity could not believe vanguard did that , our rep had to confirm it for themselves it was so stupid .
> 
> we ended up pulling everything out and going to chase to get the private client perks . they too were surprised vanguard tried to push us in to trusts .
> 
> on top of that i experience the worst customer service ever from them . getting passed around like a hot potato when i had an acat transfer question .
> 
> instead of taking the info like fidelity does and getting someone on the line or someone to call back , they just kept passing us off calling different numbers .
> 
> they finally passed us to a number that no one ever answered . for laughs we left the multiple phones we tried calling in on where we got a message to hold for the next rep and 1 hour and 15 minutes later we stopped counting and hung up .
> 
> in my opinion they suck!!!!!!!



I'm glad I transferred my investments out of Vanguard too. I did so because nothing about dealing with them was user friendly. Apparently I did so before they did what you experienced. A couple of years back I also transferred investments out of Fidelity because none of their representatives would answer a simple question: Are they still affiliated with ALEC. I felt as an investor in their company I had a right to receive an answer. Many large, reputable companies had severed ties with ALEC due to their far reaching agenda.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

mathjak107 said:


> the problem is cost cutting has a bottom and when expenses you can't control keep rising , eventually you see why not only is cost cutting importnt but growing income as well is very key .
> 
> generally in all these frugal living forums to much focus goes  in to lowering expenses and not enough on making sure investments can produce enough income to keep up once there is nothing left to cut except to down grade an entire lifestyle .



It's unfortunate Mathjak but most people I know in frugal forums don't even have savings accounts let alone investments. And according to so many articles I've read, they are hardly alone. Everybody is not as fortunate as you (or I) in that regard so to focus on growing investments would be a moot point.


----------



## mathjak107

OneEyedDiva said:


> It's unfortunate Mathjak but most people I know in frugal forums don't even have savings accounts let alone investments. And according to so many articles I've read, they are hardly alone. Everybody is not as fortunate as you (or I) in that regard so to focus on growing investments would be a moot point.


And that is why they have the problems so many are hitting in retirement . Most desirable areas are going to have faster and higher growing expenses  and that makes that paid off mortgage irrelevant in affordability.

so many retirees surveyed in the tristate area thought they were set by having a paid off mortgage by retirement .

well all well and good that 30k mortgage you took , was paid off 30 years later but taxes are 12-18k alone today . That mortgage payment down th road won’t cover your utility bill.

so thinking cost cutting was going to be the answer has now got most moving and not by choice . Many are leaving family and friends .

so it is not a case of one is easier to do then the other for some , it is the fact if you don’t put yourself in the position of cutting costs and being able to grow income you better have a plan B


----------



## OneEyedDiva

mathjak107 said:


> And that is why they have the problems so many are hitting in retirement . Most desirable areas are going to have faster and higher growing expenses  and that makes that paid off mortgage irrelevant in affordability.
> 
> so many retirees surveyed in the tristate area thought they were set by having a paid off mortgage by retirement .
> 
> well all well and good that 30k mortgage you took , was paid off 30 years later but taxes are 12-18k alone today . That mortgage payment down th road won’t cover your utility bill.
> 
> so thinking cost cutting was going to be the answer has now got most moving and not by choice . Many are leaving family and friends .
> 
> so it is not a case of one is easier to do then the other for some , it is the fact if you don’t put yourself in the position of cutting costs and being able to grow income you better have a plan B



_Sorry I'm so late replying...just saw this. The last couple of months of 2018 were hell and hectic. My husband had been in and out of the hospital and rehab center which kept me ripping and running. He finally wound up in ICU for 2 weeks on life support and passed away Dec. 23rd.  In January I took a nearly 2 week vacation, then had to catch up with things I was too exhausted to get done those months. Anyway, I'm just now starting to catch up on my social networking sites.

I've been telling people the same kinds of things you speak of in your reply. I'm trying to get my grandchildren ready for financial realities of this life. Been talking to my son for literally decades...now he finally gets it....he'll be 51 in a couple of months. I also have a couple of friends and honorary children who ask for my money advice.  I have to laugh when I see those home buying shows and new home owners are so happy saying they finally "own" their home. I think, just miss a payment or two and you'll see that you don't own it.  Same for taxes. The average person I know either can't come up with that additional $4,500 a quarter for taxes or it's a real strain with life's other costs. Rents are not that affordable for the average young couple in my area but go a few miles to one of the infamously high cost counties in my state and rents are down right ridiculous; $2,558 for a one bedroom. So I "preach" to the young-uns to start saving at least 20 cents out of every dollar they make because I shudder to think what rents and/or mortgages will be when they get older. For the Gen-X'ers I tell them it's time to step it up and max out their retirement investments to the best of their abilities *after* saving an adequate emergency fund.  Cut out the wants and only do the needs._


----------



## Manatee

Our kids grew up here in Florida, but are now live about 3000 miles away in the Pacific northwet.  They are much more affluent than we are, so it is logical to keep the status quo.   We paid cash for our condo and we do not live extravagantly, so there is no reason to change anything.  Down the road may be another story.


----------



## fuzzybuddy

I'd get some legal advice before doing things like this. There was a similar plan like this about 20 years ago. I bought my parents home for $1. They still paid all the bills, etc. It was supposed to avoid taxes. She lived in Massachusetts, where there are high property taxes.  The little house that my parents bought in 1960 for $11,000 was then appraised for ten times that. Since she didn't own the home, she couldn't claim the tax credit. Plus they changed the tax code to do away with that loop hole. My mom bought back her home for that $1. Ya know I never did get that buck.


----------



## Connie

My husband lived in his mothers home - his dad had passed away - he moved in and took care of the place for his mom and I took her to her dr appointments, lunch engagements etc.  She signed the home over to us and we put in the signing that she had life use.  Fortunately we had the means to continue to pay the taxes and the bills.  She eventually had to go to a nursing home as she had alzhiemers (sp?).  When she moved to the nursing home the county tried to tell us we had to turn the home over to them.  I called my lawyer who informed me that we did not have to because my husband had lived there for many years and that it was his residence.  I called the county back and informed them of what the lawyer had said.  The county said "yes, you are correct.  But if you dont know that then we do whatever we can to get the homes."  That really floored me!!!!  That was 15 years ago, and I still cannot believe what I heard from that county worker.  

Always ask for advice when someone is trying to take something from you or talk you into something.  I am so glad I made that phone call.


----------



## Keesha

I’ve got to agree about getting legal advice about important decisions regarding estates or finances. Just reading Connie’s last post should make everyone shudder.


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Connie said:


> My husband lived in his mothers home - his dad had passed away - he moved in and took care of the place for his mom and I took her to her dr appointments, lunch engagements etc.  She signed the home over to us and we put in the signing that she had life use.  Fortunately we had the means to continue to pay the taxes and the bills.  She eventually had to go to a nursing home as she had alzhiemers (sp?).  When she moved to the nursing home the county tried to tell us we had to turn the home over to them.  I called my lawyer who informed me that we did not have to because my husband had lived there for many years and that it was his residence.  I called the county back and informed them of what the lawyer had said.  The county said "yes, you are correct.  But if you dont know that then we do whatever we can to get the homes."  That really floored me!!!!  That was 15 years ago, and I still cannot believe what I heard from that county worker.
> 
> Always ask for advice when someone is trying to take something from you or talk you into something.  I am so glad I made that phone call.


You're right Connie. I've learned that more than half the time you can't trust what the representative on the other end of the line tells you.


----------



## Butterfly

OneEyedDiva said:


> You're right Connie. I've learned that more than half the time you can't trust what the representative on the other end of the line tells you.



Absolutely!  AND, far too many people would rather just take the "representative's" word as gospel than pay a reasonable amount to an expert for advice that can save them thousands of dollars.  I can't even count how many people I've heard say "I can't afford to see a lawyer" when the truth is "you can't afford not to."   I'm not advocating running to a lawyer every time you hit a small snag, but for big stuff like Connie is talking about you REALLY need expert advice.

Most communities nowdays have some version of a Senior Citizen's Legal Office, where you can get help and advice for little or nothing if you are over 55.


----------



## StarSong

I so agree with Butterfly and our Diva ^^^

When it comes to anything to do with government we need to do our own research and hire experts when appropriate. (For instance, I researched SS like crazy before deciding on a filing strategy. I can't believe how many people take a SS rep's advice for when and how they should file. )

The internet is our friend when it comes to learning the basics of our rights and options, but there's nothing like getting expert advice - and then researching it all over again with that new information.


----------



## Trade

StarSong said:


> I so agree with Butterfly and our Diva ^^^
> 
> When it comes to anything to do with government we need to do our own research and hire experts when appropriate. (For instance, I researched SS like crazy before deciding on a filing strategy. I can't believe how many people take a SS rep's advice for when and how they should file. )
> 
> The internet is our friend when it comes to learning the basics of our rights and options, but there's nothing like getting expert advice - and then researching it all over again with that new information.



It seems like almost everyday I see at least one new article on the internet telling people that they should delay taking social security until later. I think the government is behind this because ideally they want you to wait until you are dead.


----------



## mathjak107

Trade said:


> It seems like almost everyday I see at least one new article on the internet telling people that they should delay taking social security until later. I think the government is behind this because ideally they want you to wait until you are dead.


Nonsense ...with life expectancy being what it is today , especially for a couple delayng would really hurt them more as they would pay out much more ...ss has not been actuarially neutral for a long time...that is why they did away with restricted application and file and suspend as more and more of the public learned about these things through the media and delaying started ramping up


----------



## StarSong

We opted to delay to 70 for my husband, but file at 65 for me, and have him file spousal benefits (half of my SS) at his age 66.  So we get 1-1/2 of my benefits each month while his continue to increase by 8% a year.  At 70 he'll file against his own benefits.  Between his full SS and mine we will be in pretty good shape each month just from SS without factoring in our retirement savings (no 401K or pension because we owned a small business).  

Presuming we don't die at the same time, the surviving spouse will surely be glad to receive his 32% higher benefits than if he filed at 66, and a whopping 76% higher than if he filed at 62. All of our parents lived into their 90s and we're in good health, so it's a pretty good bet that at least one of us will hang around long enough to be grateful for the larger check. 

Like I said, I researched this like crazy before deciding on a filing strategy. None of my friends who went to the SS for guidance were even advised of this strategy, nor to look at their family longevity.


----------



## Trade

I started mine at 65 to coincide with starting Medicare so I could get the double impact of paying less for Health Insurance, plus getting a monthly check. My wife did the same thing.


----------



## Trade

mathjak107 said:


> Nonsense ...with life expectancy being what it is today , especially for a couple delayng would really hurt them more as they would pay out much more ...ss has not been actuarially neutral for a long time...that is why they did away with restricted application and file and suspend as more and more of the public learned about these things through the media and delaying started ramping up



I don't believe a word of it. The government wants us peasants to work until we die.


----------



## A2ZGrammie

Moving is not an easy option. True, a mover can be hired, but boxes still have to be packed, then unpacked. A new household set up. Personal items still have to be sorted.

We recently moved, and it was a disaster. My health failed, and everything was left in the hands of my spouse. With all respect to the suggestion, casually thinking of a move to lower housing costs isn't so casual. It really is a big deal. It sounds like a great idea, but being forced out of our home was a disaster. It was a job of gigantic proportions!


----------



## debodun

One time when I was having a garage sale, a man stopped. In conversation, it turned out he was a flipper and was interested in buying my house. I told him that I had no place to go if I did sell. Then he said that he would allow me to live there and pay rent to him and he would be responsible for taxes and maintenance. It just sounded fishy to me. What's to keep him from throwing me out after a few months or keep raising the rent until I couldn't afford it? I also wondered how diligently he would actually take care of the property. Something just set my alarm bells off.


----------



## Marie5656

@debodun, I would have been leary as well.  Glad you said no.  I know the same advice is given when people want to sign over their homes to kids or grandkids. What is to stop them from kicking you to the street, or selling the house from under you


----------



## debodun

Yes, whoever is the legal owner of a property can do anything they want (within legal limits, of course).


----------



## Pete

Lara said:


> Things you can do to cut your living expenses without lowering your standard of living:
> 
> 1. Give your house to your children via an Irrevocable Trust. Then rent the house and live there. Have an estate attorney draft the documents and provisions.
> 
> 2. Sell your home to your kids and live there...maybe pay rent, maybe not.
> 
> Gifting or selling your house to your children and then living there is the only option that will both maintain your lifestyle and reduce your costs according to Timothy Speises of the firm, EisnerAmper.
> 
> As long as your children are willing and able to pay for the property taxes, maintenance, repairs, and any remaining mortgage payments, your house costs will be low...maybe even non-existent.


How about just not buying stuff because its 'newer' or supposedly better?


----------



## Marie5656

Pete said:


> How about just not buying stuff because its 'newer' or supposedly better?



True.  This year I have been replacing several things, but because it was time, not because of better.  Now that I am down to one income, I have rethought several of the entertainment things.  I cut out Hulu, and will end Prime when it expires. I picked up cable, and get plenty enough for less monthly expense.


----------



## Lc jones

Trade said:


> It seems like almost everyday I see at least one new article on the internet telling people that they should delay taking social security until later. I think the government is behind this because ideally they want you to wait until you are dead.


Trade you are absolutely right!


----------



## mathjak107

based on the fact life expectancy has increased to the point a 65 year old couple has almost a 50% chance of one seeing 90 and a 73%  chance of one seeing 85  they would pay out far more if  everyone delayed .
ss is not neutral statistically ... it pays out way more based on life expectancy if people delay .


----------



## Trade

mathjak107 said:


> based on the fact life expectancy has increased to the point a 65 year old couple has almost a 50% chance of one seeing 90 and a 73%  chance of one seeing 85  they would pay out far more if  everyone delayed .
> ss is not neutral statistically ... it pays out way more based on life expectancy if people delay .



So in other words instead of taking it at say 65 when you are still young enough to enjoy it, wait and take a chance that you will live long enough to collect a few more bucks when you are 85 or 90 and too old and feeble to enjoy it? Soiunds like a plan to me.


----------



## mathjak107

Trade said:


> So in other words instead of taking it at say 65 when you are still young enough to enjoy it, wait and take a chance that you will live long enough to collect a few more bucks when you are 85 or 90 and too old and feeble to enjoy it? Soiunds like a plan to me.


those would not be the words i would use .... 

.....  no one should ever delay taking ss unless they can lay out the ss they are delaying to draw the same budget ... all that should shift is the make up of your income from more your own money to more ss money and less of yours if you delay .

in my opinion if you can not afford to delay  and lay out the ss up front and enjoy the same budget all the way through then delaying should really not be an option .

those who think  those who delay wait 8 years to spend more are very wrong in most cases , it is not how it should work nor do most do it that way ..

what you really  are doing is betting more on longevity if you delay and less on markets and rates .  if you take it early the smaller check has you betting more on markets and rates ...

most Americans can not afford to delay properly so stopping work early and delaying is not really a good option for them .  waiting 8 years makes little sense to first incorporate that money in to your  lifestyle .


----------



## Trade

mathjak107 said:


> those would not be the words i would use ....
> 
> .....  no one should ever delay taking ss unless they can lay out the ss they are delaying to draw the same budget ... all that should shift is the make up of your income from more your own money to more ss money and less of yours if you delay .
> 
> in my opinion if you can not afford to delay  and lay out the ss up front and enjoy the same budget all the way through then delaying should really not be an option .
> 
> those who think  those who delay wait 8 years to spend more are very wrong in most cases , it is not how it should work nor do most do it that way ..
> 
> what you really  are doing is betting more on longevity if you delay and less on markets and rates .  if you take it early the smaller check has you betting more on markets and rates ...
> 
> most Americans can not afford to delay properly so stopping work early and delaying is not really a good option for them .  waiting 8 years makes little sense to first incorporate that money in to your  lifestyle .



I took mine at 65 because in 1963 when I got my social security card and started my first job at age 16 my government made a solemn promise to me that I would be able to collect full social security at age 65. Then in 1983 my government reneged on said solemn promise and raised the age that I could collect full social security to 66. I do not recognize this as a legitimate act on their part. Therefore I started mine at 65 like I was promised. However my government only gave me 93 and 1/3 percent of what I feel I was owed. So as far as I am concerned every month they are robbing me of that other 6 and 2/3 percent. At the present time this amounts to $143.75 every month.


----------



## mathjak107

same , i took it at 65 . i was spending down invested assets , i was working one day a week and made to much to file earlier , for every year i delayed we did not get 4500 in spousal added to my wifes a year .


----------



## mathjak107

Trade said:


> I took mine at 65 because in 1963 when I got my social security card and started my first job at age 16 my government made a solemn promise to me that I would be able to collect full social security at age 65. Then in 1983 my government reneged on said solemn promise and raised the age that I could collect full social security to 66. I do not recognize this as a legitimate act on their part. Therefore I started mine at 65 like I was promised. However my government only gave me 93 and 1/3 percent of what I feel I was owed. So as far as I am concerned every month they are robbing me of that other 6 and 2/3 percent. At the present time this amounts to $143.75 every month.




there are always changes in everything in life .... people see pensions slashed , taxes raised , even things like social security were originally  not taxed at all ...

we may have had file and suspend or restricted application in our plans and that is gone ...  but the flip side is   back in the 1970's cola raises were added ... when i started working there were no cola raises yet ...


----------



## OneEyedDiva

Trade said:


> I don't believe a word of it. The government wants us peasants to work until we die.


Like you, I've felt that "the government" is behind the push to wait until full retirement age.  I'm glad to see that now more financial planners are publishing articles that cover the pros (as well as cons) of taking it early and the need for some to do so. The articles mention the break even age...the age at which it makes no real difference when you started. Mine is 78. Obviously for those who don't live that long, taking it early was the right decision. Same for people who can't make ends meet without it. Although I took mine at 62 and don't regret it, the only reason I would give for waiting these days is the looming possibility of a 23% cut in benefits starting in 2034 unless some serious fixes are initiated. This is only one of many articles about it:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/07/23/whos-ready-for-a-23-cut-to-their-social-security-b.aspx


----------



## NewRetire18

Funny, when I first saw the title of this post, I thought it would apply to all. Unfortunately, we don't have kids, but we figured out a way to do what the title implies anyway. It seems we are the only ones that don't have kids...c'est la vie.


----------



## squatting dog

Simple.... just downsize.


----------

