Heartbroken that I'm being forced to sell mum's house, she worked hard for it and paid her national insurance(1000 Posts)
And now her savings are running out I will need to sell her house to carry on funding it.
It all seems to very unfair, her house was supposed to be passed to me but instead it's affectively passed to government and private companies.
I thought the dimentia tax had been can cancelled?
So you think someone else should fund your inheritance?
Is she going into a home? We sold mil’s house to fund her nursing home. Who do you think should pay it? Your national insurance does not pay for a nursing home.
We need more information op, why is it being sold?..is she in a nursing home and it's being sold to pay for her care?...is she in debt and it's being sold to pay her debts off?...
Wow, so you should have your inheritance protected, and we should fund her care??
I do understand why you are upset, but you are being massively unreasonable.
Goodness me. I can see the pound signs from here.
I know it must be very difficult for you, but I don't for a second believe a home should pass on to the children through inheritance when there are bills to pay.
The “dementia tax” was for care in their own home. Presumably your mother is in a care home which has to be paid for, and always has been.
I don't think you are unreasonable. It's very sad I wish there was a better way of dealing with it.
I think, had the so called dementia tax been introduced, your Mum could have kept more from her assets than is currently the case iirc. Care has to be funded from somewhere, and sadly the costs aren't reasonable.
I read yesterday the current thinking is to charge each of us £30k on retirement to help with any care fees and out it into a central fund. People will be forced to downsize to get the money.
I don't think you are being unreasonable because the risks for dementia/Parkinsons etc should be pooled in the same way as if you were diagnosed with cancer or heart disease. It IS unfair and I think you should get to keep a lot more than £23,000.
Hopefully, eventually, the government will grasp the mettle and actually do something. Germany introduced a care tax 20 years ago.
It's not just about dementia either - lots of elderly people can manage in their own homes with help, but that help is not readily available unless you pay for it even though it's much cheaper to help someone stay in their homes than pay for a care home.
The dementia tax was not brought in, but care funding is still means tested unless your mum qualifies for continuing healthcare funding (and even then you might still need to top up the fees).
If you want to keep the house in the family, can you can you not buy it? There's no right to an inheritance, so whilst I can understand your upset, you are being unreasonable.
But I thought that was the whole point of encouraging people to buy houses... So they could fund their old age if they needed care.
Well it does fund it if you don't have any savings. And people who pay themselves are charged considerably more than those who get paid for by the state.
My dad was bloody delighted he never had to pay for care and he could leave his house to his children.
I assume that she has had to go into a home of some sort? If that is the case then it has to be paid for somehow. As hard as it may be not getting any inheritance think of it as your mum working hard and in return getting good quality care. I think nowadays home owners need to view their homes not as passing it down to the next generation, but as an insurance for the best care they can buy in old age.
She's in a home, has been for the last 16 months. What is ni for if it isn't for heath care? I feel like she should be given a refund for all her ni if it's not getting the care she needs
This has been the case for long before the so called dementia tax was mentioned. So much so that some crook of an "advisor" tried to convince mil to pay for a dodgy piece of paper that would allegedly stop that from happening if fil went into a home.
YANBU. It is disgusting that someone that has worked all of their life can lose their home while someone that hasn't earned anything gets taken care of in exactly the same way. Bonkers system.
It will encourage people to sell equity in their home (even if it means losing 50%) and just pissing it away. Better that than it all being eaten up by care fees. I'd hope my parents do this and enjoy their OWN money than the alternative.
Look after her yourself if you're so desperate to get your mitts on her money.
The house was her security, and now she needs it to live. Thank goodness she has it. Sorry that you were counting on inheriting but would you want to be tied to the lowest level of care the government would provide in your old age? Try to focus on how good it is that your mum has the resources she needs to be as comfortable as possible in her last years.
Sorry to hear about your mum. Unfortunately none of us pay enough NI to fund years of FT nursing care. You are not giving the money to the government or companies, you are paying for her to be looked after.
It does feel unfair when others get it for nothing. You will be able to save (iirc) about £23k and then the state will fund her care.
The dementia tax (again, iirc) would have capped the amount anyone paid to about £55k so would have been better for most people in your position.
How do those without tangible assets like houses pay for care homes and the like? Just curious - I've no opinion on this one way or the other suffice to say that if you can afford the best possible care then go that road.
Why dont you buy the house if it's that important to you? Being stroppy about it won't get you anywhere.
And NI is for a lot of things and even a lifetime's contributions aren't enough to cover old age care costs. It is also not a personal insurance plan. It helps to make sure that even those who can not work their whole lives, through no fault of their own, are also supported. It's how society looks after each other.
Maybe put down that daily mail, eh?
I understand but I don't agree with you. All of us need to consider how we're going to pay for care in our old age if we need it. A house is an asset and, once liquid savings have gone, it has to go into the pot. Of course you could care for your mum in her own home, then the house would be safe.
I think the NI conts are paid in order to qualify for pensions and other benefits - pretty sure they don't pay towards care. I presume your DM is claiming a pension?
NI also goes towards things like pensions plus all the years of healthcare she has received throughout her life. Is she going to give all her years of pension back?
I just don't understand why anyone doesn't understand that a person no longer needs their house if they are in a care home. So of course it should be sold for their care.
Vladimir - I may be a bit outdated, but once someone's personal assets in saving/property drop beneath £14500, the LA steps in and does an assessment. They're then given a set amount, FNC, potentially full CHC funding. Sometimes social workers will base the amount on the minimum the hone is willing to accept, if it's less, they need to top up from their pension.
Gromance I don't think it is the case now that people with/without assets are receiving the same sort of care. IIRC having assets means you have choice, the better places charge a lot more; so done without assets has to go wherever placed whether it is the preferred place or not.
Have you looked into CHC funding?
Is it actual healthcare needs that she has, or more general looking after/ personal care?
Most people do something clever with their home before they end up in this situation, put it in trust or leave it to children early etc.
Sadly these are things you must think about before you get to this stage.
National insurance isn’t just for healthcare either.
Sadly it’s just life, you can be upset about it, but this is why people need to plan for their old age properly, not just expect things without any actual knowledge
I can't believe the nasty replies on this thread.
It is a fucking disgrace that people work all their lives and have to sell their homes to fund their care. What happens to the National insurance that we pay. I'll slither around on the floor before I sell my home.
I'll hold my hands up I do want my dd to inherit what I've worked for.
On a thread not too long ago someone said their mum's care home was something in the region of 1k a week. I thought that must have been a typo but alas not. I'm wondering how anyone can afford 'quality' care tbh, short of being a multi-millionaire not an owner of a house somewhere in East Yorkshire.
I’m sorry that you’re going through this but YABU.
She worked hard for her house. You didn’t. Why should everyone else pay so that you can inherit something you didn’t earn?
Vladmirs - if you don't have your own funds then state will pay but you won't get the choice you have if you fund your own care. I do think some of the comments on here unfair and wonder how many commenting have been/are going to be luck enough to get an inheritance. As another poster above says I do think the cost of care in old age should be a pooled risk, not a lottery. That's how the health care system works so not sure why social care should be any different. Also think what is classed as health care and what is social care is unfair and drive more by funding constraints than logic.
She sounds like she is receiving social care, that is not funded if people can’t afforded to pay for it themselves.
Health care is defined differently to include hospital treatment/care and a paid for by NI.
I think that’s correct, happy to be corrected if not.
Haven't you got any accommodation where she could live, OP? Our df lived in our annex happily for 8 years until he died.
Of course having assets means choice.
I arranged that my mum spent her last years in a home that was nearly 5k per month, which was the rate for a really good standard of care in our area.
A couple of homes I viewed were where the council sent people - they were depressing and horrible, but they are where people without assets go
Really good care is damn expensive, worth saving for
All those saying it is acceptable, I assume that if you needed to stay somewhere long term for a disease that happened to not be dementia, eg, cancer, you would think it OK to lose your home to pay for it? Thought not.
Your Mums NI contributions have more than likely been spent already on her healthcare and State Pension.
You want to inherit her house and not have to sell it to pay for her residential care? Move her in with you, or move in with her at the house, and look after her yourself.
Why the fuck should everyone else fund your inheritance??????
YAbu - be thankful that she has an asset to pay for decent care or you’d be struggling to pay for it yourself.
I feel like she should be given a refund for all her ni if it's not getting the care she needs
It's part of being in a welfare state. It's not a Christmas club. You don't get back exactly what you put in. In fact, if you've got kids and they go to state schools, unless you're a higher rate taxpayer by a long way and for a long time you take out rather than contribute.
We can fund everything for an ageing population. We can provide gold plated cutlery in care homes. We can protect your inheritance. But the tax burden on the working population will be so high that, ultimately, all the young people will leave....
I live in Germany, where there has been a separate care tax for the last 25 years or so.
Even that is supposed to help fund care - mainly in the home - it wouldn't stretch to cover all costs for a care home
Yabu she has assets and should fund her care. Who else do you think should fund it so that you can obtain money you didn’t earn?
NI is not just for healthcare. There is not enough money in the NI pot to fund nursing homes, the system wouldn't work.
It is our own responsibility to make provision for our own old age, if you cannot look after your DM yourself then her assets will need to be used.
You cannot expect the government to fund her nursing home care so that you can inherit her assets.
You cannot expect the government to fund her nursing home care so that you can inherit her assets I will ensure I have fuck all in assets by the time I'm around 70 then.
So she's saved all her life for a rainy day, and now it's a rainy day and you don't think she should use her savings to pay for it - she should give them to you instead?
Having a mil with vascular dementia, there is no way we could look after her. In her specialist home, she has pressure pads in her room so the staff can tell if she’s up and about, staff who are trained to deal. There is no way we could look after her. Yes, people work hard for their homes and yes, it’s a shame to have to sell it, but what would you like to happen? No way does NI cover 24/7 specialist care. I’m fully expecting one of my parents to need end of life care, both heading for 80. They’re on about me inheriting the house. I’m not counting on anything because you never know what will happen and where people will end up.
Unless she has been a higher rate tax payer her entire life then she won't have paid enough into "the pot" to cover everything she has benefited from including the NHS, infrastructure, policing, etc. Most people are net gainers, rather than net contributers. They just don't like the idea of it because it lumps them with those on benefits. So your argument about national insurance isnt really valid. I really don't see why I should pay more tax to fund the care of someone who can pay it themselves just so you have something to inherit.
I know from my own elderly relatives, that most care homes take both privately paid and local authority funded residents. If you are LA funded you have a social worker that visits and makes sure you are being properly cared for.The Care Homes aware that LA residents are their bread and butter and they are monitored by social workers. In my experience LA funded residents have a better experience than privately funded residents.
Spend your money, the present system is not transparent and penalises those middling income people who have saved for their old age.
I can actually see OP's point. In other areas of our lives we expect care for conditions we can't help. If OP's mum had cancer she would be treated in hospital free of charge. As it is she has a condition which means she's not mentally able to care for herself and needs help. It does seem unfair to work all your life then for it be the luck of the draw whether you get to pass on the result of that hard work or burn through it all in a few years of old age. If OP's mum had given her house away to her children years ago she would be entitled to state care.
Personally I'd prefer a system of much higher taxes through out our life then proper medical care until we die.
Op I do get why you are upset. Selling your family home is hard. We are currently in the process of selling FIL and MILs home after MIL passed away earlier this year (Fil died many years ago) None of dh or his siblings ever lived in this house but its still memories and very hard to accept she is gone and its a tough thing to do.
Sadly money is needed for carehomes and to me it is a good thing she has the access to some so she can pay for a good quality of care. Are you in a position to buy the home?
Decent care is definitely worth paying for. My mum's care home was £1k a week and it was brilliant. Our local council will only fund £400 a week for people with no assets and I wouldn't put a dog in the homes they use.
The care you receive if you pay 1k plus a week or have it funded by the state is no different. The people with 'assets' pay the difference for those paid for by the state basically. It is a travesty.
It isn't 'the care' that is largely being charged for but housing. The NHS can not afford to house the increasing numbers of frail elders. You know, those people who used to go to live with their adult children and receive health care at home.
We as a society decided we didn't want to have that responsibility anymore and so the government has made arrangements to do it for us... and that includes asking those who have assets to sell them to pay for it. It's easy, sell a house to pay for a place to live that will accommodate your health needs. That's what used to happen anyway - kids took in parent and maybe got a house as payment!
Kids get to inherit anything that is left over [bites lip on next sentence]
It's a lesson to us all not to be prudent. We should all live in rented houses and spend every penny as it comes in. Then the state will pick up the tab when we are old.
We had to sell my mother's house to fund her care home (she had dementia and it was pretty bad by the time a care home was needed).
I often felt it was something of a 'luxury' to be able to self fund, rather than be at the mercy of cash-strapped social services. I was often grateful that we didn't have to involve them at all - we didn't want anyone who didn't know her telling us what was best for our own mother.
Or trying to insist (as often happens) that she'd still be fine at home with a bit more help popping in, when we knew that 24/7 care was urgently needed.,
How do those without tangible assets like houses pay for care homes and the like?
The government pay some of it and the care home makes up the rest by putting it's prices up for people who do have assets.
I think it’s unfair that someone who has worked and paid for their own home is penalised when so many don’t bother to think about their retirement. You only have to read the renting threads on here to know that a huge number of people will expect the government to step in and look after them in old age .
NI funded her pension
The NHS is mostly funded by direct taxation
If care is to be totally state funded, then taxes would have to rise. A LOT
So people who can never own their own home should pay higher taxes to fund other people inhering a fully paid for home ?
Sorry haven’t read through the thread. A few years ago, I think around 2010, the Labour Party wrote a report suggesting a National Care Fund which would be funded by a universal tax on a person’s estate after death, for example about 10% of the estate. In this way everyone would know they could get care if in their last years they were unfortunate to get an illness like dementia that required a lot of care in their last few years of life. However, they would not lose all their estate, bar the last approx £20,000 as happens now. So it wouldn’t be a lottery as it is now.
It would be the same principle as how we fund NHS, everybody pays in, so everybody is covered if they get ill and nobody is faced with bankrupt inducing healthcare bills. Everybody pays in with the knowledge some will need to use it more than others.
Doobydoo, you couldn't be more wrong. LA funded residents never get near the best care homes, they have waiting lists of self funders.
StepBack How right you are! Madness isn't it?
I feel the need to be financially reckless coming on.
@FlyingDandelionSeed Might a person then logically conclude that it 'might' be better not to have such assets when one reaches that point in life?
We have had to do similar for both my grandmother and my aunt. And I'm sure in 10 years or so I'll have to make similar arrangements for my mother.
I don't care about the money. I'd rather my relatives use their money to ensure they are as well cared for as possible.
However I do struggle with the tight turnarounds places on selling the property and accessing the funds. Social Services putting pressure to sell up immediately, often meaning the property is sold at a loss. It's stress that the family doesn't need. And having to decide what personal items the person going into a home should keep or have to get rid of is such a tough thing to do. It's emotionally draining and made harder by the time pressures put in place.
My mum is avoiding this (although it's mainly to avoid inheritance tax) by signing over assets and giving me and my step-siblings some of our inheritance now. Given she's still quite young, by the time she potentially needs care, long enough will have elapsed that it won't be judged as trying to dodge paying for care (and we won't get stung by inheritance tax either). Obviously it's more difficult if the sole asset is the house that's being lived in, though.
Look, you can agree that it's necessary for economical reasons but that doesn't make it any less heartbreaking to see people stung by it because they were unfortunate enough to develop dementia or another long-term condition that requires a care home, as opposed to just dropping dead of a heart attack one day. My great aunt's assets were almost entirely used up in a long decline into dementia: my grandfather's were barely touched as he was able to stay in his home because his condition didn't require that kind of care. It's about being unlucky as much as it is about being 'fair', as is a lot of stuff to do with healthcare.
You only have to read the renting threads on here to know that a huge number of people will expect the government to step in and look after them in old age.
Due to the country’s massive housing inflation, some parts of the UK are so expensive now that people simply can’t get on the housing ladder and there are more renters now.
Why should someone who works hard all there life have to sell assets to fund care when someone who has done nothing to save get exactly the same treatment.
This country does not encourage to save
I think you have to think about it like it gives your mother the option to to be looked after well in her old age and she (you) will have the choice of the best care. She is never going to be able to live in her house again anyway.
Inheritance is something that we have to treat as a bonus if we get it but not an expectation.
Could she stay at home or with you with carers for when you are work and rent her house out to pay for it?
I think there's a loophole whereby Mum could have signed the house over to her proposed inheritor and providing Mum lives ten years prior to needing care the house goes to the proposed inheritor. Correct me if I'm wrong. Part of 'estate planning' as they call it? One of the problems is that children sometimes then throw the parent out of the house in order to access the asset.
I work in a hospital ward for patients with dementia. I can understand it's upsetting having to pay £££ for care home fees, but there simply isn't enough money in the NHS to pay for this. If your Mum has very complex health needs you may be entitled to CHC funding, but the criteria to get this is very strict and you usually need to have very high care needs, or multiple health issues to qualify.
For people wondering what happens if you don't have any money / assets to fund your care, there are social services funded places in homes for people with limited financial assets. BUT, be mindful that these are often real 'budget' care homes and often aren't as good as privately funded ones (although obviously this is a generalisation and there is a massive variation in homes).
OP could you look into renting your Mum's house out and putting the rent towards funding her care?
It's a shame that often these things are not thought about until it's too late. My DM only retired 2 years ago and we have built her a granny annex for future care purposes. In return she is gifting us her house (which we will let out and put the money into a separate account to save for any care she needs, which hopefully can be provided at home). In principle the idea of funding nursing care from available funds is the fairest, although I agree with PP's that the distinction between dementia and other illnesses is bloody arbitrary.
I also have some sympathy with the OP - our tax levels seem bloody high for not very much compared to our European neighbours.
IIRC having assets means you have choice, the better places charge a lot more; so done without assets has to go wherever placed whether it is the preferred place or not.
It was this way 20 years ago with my DGP - if you exhaust your money assets then the house has to be sold. Could be worse you might have to make top ups from your earnings to have choice.
The state isn't going to pay for care homes - we are already facing a reduction in taxable workers and rising health and state pension costs for aging population. Politian’s don’t want to touch it as having any kind of debate on the subject is politically unpopular – there have been attempts over the years last one in last election which is thought to have cost Tories votes.
On a thread not too long ago someone said their mum's care home was something in the region of 1k a week. I thought that must have been a typo but alas not
No – I can’t get that through to IL – my parents had to arrange payment for DGP so they have an idea – I can’t even get IL to consider moving to a property with downstairs loo.
They have “expectations” about us – but we live a huge distance away and I need to pay into my pension, pay down our mortgage and put some savings away. They don't want to listen.
So reading this thread has me wondering, is there some kind of insurance I can get now when younger (so hopefully not too costly) to cover these potential costs?
I know there’s such a thing as longievity insurance.
It's bittersweet isn't it. On the one hand, you've got the luxury of knowing you can make powerful choices for your Mum, as if she's unhappy somewhere she has the financial clout to be moved somewhere else. On the other hand, she knows (assuming she has the capacity) that the longer she lives, the less she can give you when she goes.
Until she dies however, that's an asset that can be used to help pay for her care. We paid for my Dad's care, and whilst it was financially painful, we knew he was contented and much loved in the nursing home we chose for him. I don't grudge him a penny of it, and you won't either. If your Mum worked hard all her life to buy a house, then I assume that she also worked hard keeping you safe and warm and well loved. She's done her job. Now her savings (the house IS her savings, I presume) look after her, when she needs it. It's not selfish of you to wish it were different.
Maybe you could look after her yourself?
If you can't or won't why shouldn't you pay for her care?
Sorry to hear your mum is needing this level of support. However she needs to pay her board and lodging as well as her care Bill and if the only way to do this is to sell an empty house than so be it. The state can't keep funding people's inheritance
I know it seems very unfair but your mum has care needs that have to be paid for. It's not really like healthcare, it's more like childcare but for elderly people. My sons have sn and I will either have to look after them until I die or pay someone else to do it.
It is such a sad situation
I’ve been there and done that
If a non-elderly person requires care, they are not asked to fund it.
As I posted, there was a HUGE difference in the standard of home my mum got, choosing and paying ourselves,
than if she and I hadn't the assets
Assets / money brings CHOICE
Those who advocate spending all their money before that age:
You have far more faith in the state than I ever would
You can't predict how politics will change, as the demographics and the world changes
Pensioners could become the new "scroungers"
Will state homes still be decent in 20 years, or will they be more like Victorian poor-houses ?
If you don't like it, why don't you look after your mum in her own home ? Then the house will remain yours in full upon her death. Seems obvious to me . I gave up my career to look after my parents a year ago . They haven't a lot of money either, it is because l love them and don't want to put them in a home.
It's not just health care though is it. We all need to pay for our housing, utilities, taxes, where we live. Your mum now lives in a care hime or sheltered housing and has to cover those costs, especially as she has a massive asset she isn't able to use.
Or do you think she should make money from her house asset by renting it, and then get her living costs paid by tax payer. That wouldn't be right would it?
We had to sell my dm's house to pay for her care. After seeing some of the really awful care homes out there, i am really pleased that she had her assets that meant that we could choose a nice care home. She gets upset knowing that all her savings, that she wanted us to inherit, are gone, but i tell her, it was always her money, (never ours) and if we want money, we must go and earn it...same as she did!.
There was a time when children would care for their parents when they became unwell. There is now support for this, with respite, home nursing, social workers etc. we care for my MIL between us and it has allowed her to stay in her home. She’s 96 now. She’s happy that she hasn’t had to leave her home and we keep her safe and comfortable. It’s better for us too, as her home will not need to be sold and she feels loved by her family. After all, she fed and washed my dh and helped him to thrive. It’s only fair that we return that love and kindness as long as we can.
Why should someone who works hard all there life have to sell assets to fund care when someone who has done nothing to save get exactly the same treatment.
Why don't people bother to read the thread before posting? Having assets gives you choice, you're not just shoved wherever costs the least.
Care homes are for care, "treatment" is a very small part of that (and often is nothing more than having medication dispensed). Treatment is available at no cost, care is not.
What happens when the money runs out, does the person have to leave their lovely care home and move to a less lovely one?
Francis It's about numbers and budget
There are vastly more elderly people needing extensive care - about 1 in 4 in their last years - than younger people.
It's fine saying nobody should pay for their care,
but it just means someone else has to
Would people really rather have a really big tax increase, so that some other people can keep their inheritance ?
I don't understand the problem.
Your mum worked to support herself. This is a continuation of her supporting herself. It's what you are supposed to do.
We rented mums house out and the income plus her saving she paid for her care is that an option ?
wagii Yes, they have to move to a state-funded home if the money runs out
The homes my mother went to recommended that people should have at least 4 years of fees available.
If you were moving house, you’d expect to sell your current house to pay for your next house, wouldn’t you? Why is a residential home seen any differently? Your mum is selling her current house to pay for the one she needs now.
I understand it’s hard emotionally when it’s your childhood home - but essentially you’re expecting other people, many of whom also work very hard and would love to own their own home but simply can’t afford to do so, many of whom will not have inheritances of their own to receive, to protect your inheritance.
Social care isn't the same as health care. If she was ill and in hospital she wouldn't be charged for it - that's what NI is for.
You're not wrong that there needs to be much better provision for social care in this country. Not because you deserve to have your inheritance protected, but because for those who don't own their own homes and can't fund places in decent care homes, the options are pretty dire.
The only answer of course is higher taxes, but that's never a welcome suggestion.
MrsMad, not everybody by any means can afford to give up work to care for a parent full time. The vast majority of people who go into care homes do so because they do need full time care - by which I mean someone on hand all day, all night, 365 days a year.
Which is often difficult or impossible to provide anyway, in a normal family setting. And I speak as someone who has done it, for my FiL who also had dementia. It was around a year before the stress and exhaustion - not to mention the endlessly disturbed nights for us all - became just too much, and we found a lovely care home for him.
If you don't like it, why don't you look after your mum in her own home ? Then the house will remain yours in full upon her death. Seems obvious to me . I gave up my career to look after my parents a year ago . They haven't a lot of money either, it is because l love them and don't want to put them in a home
Thanks for that. I have just put my mum in a home. I didn’t want to but nor did I want my children to have the sanctuary of their home ruined by their grandmother’s hallucinations and associated behaviours. Dementia is a dreadful disease, requires 24 hour care and is utterly relentless. As a single parent With an ex who pays no maintenance I also didn’t feel bringing up my children on benefits was an option.
I am glad you feel able to support your parents. We don’t all have that option. And like the OP, I will miss out on inheritance as a result.
wagil the care home my dm is in, says that when the money runs out she will be moved, on paper, to the council funded side of the care home. In actual fact, nothing will change for her, same room, same level of care. I hope they are right and do not come looking to the family to top up her care costs, as we cannot afford £1k/week.
The trouble with the current policy is that it creates peverse incentives that can be perceived as unfair (as many have pointed out). If you do the right thing (what the state would want you to do) and accumulate assets you get penalised, if you spend as you earn you get the same care for nothing. It is also a reasonable aspiration to pass on your accumulated wealth to your children.
There was a policy suggestion, made a few years ago, that those that had assets could make a one off insurance payment of about £20K or £30K on retirement (65 or whatever) that would protect them from care costs later on. This seems like a reasonable, workable, cost neutral compromise and it would also be voluntary. I am surprised that no political party is including this (or something like it) in their manifesto.
We have been through this with two relatives who had to move to nursing homes. One sadly died just before the house had to be sold. The other used all her savings bar the £23k reserve. Once it got to the point where she was no longer self funding, the LA immediately tried to move her to a cheaper home, with worse facilities, in a town 30 miles from all her family. DH had POA and was able to fight it, and in the end they backed down and she stayed where she was for her last 6 months.
If she hadn't had some cash, she would have been straight in the inappropriate home, without any choices. That is what having savings allows.
It does feel crap that people have to sell their house to find their care. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable that they should pay for their new accommodation somehow. And they no longer need the house.
Could you not let your mother's house to fund her care?
I'm quite shocked about this, some years ago I read that sick elderly people would no longer have to pay for their own care. Obviously if the desired residential care home cost more than government allowance, they fund that themselves but the days of having to sell their house were over!
Most people want to leave a decent inheritance to their children.
I do hope you find a solution, it's scandalous.
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.