Where should the cost burden for care of the elderly lie in society - with the state or individual

[mids2019]

I was watching an item on a politics show about the long standing problem of funding elderly care. There was some woman who was strongly critical of the funding middle as her mother had to swell her house to find care home fees. Could one argue that the parent had no need for her house with regrettably a very small chance of return so it is fair for that a set to be used in paying for free instead of the tax payer picking up the cost? It was an elephant in the room during the interview but the person losing the most in the scenario was the daughter who ultimately would inherit less but obviously this was not said.

I don't think there is a simple answer hence successive governments pushing this into touch but where should the cost burden lie, the state of the indiividual?

I think this subject is really co.implicated by the fact that we have universally free healthcare yet a private model for social care. There really is a sinking here. Hospitals will in future not be able to fill in for shortcomings of social care and there are many cases of the elderly taking up beds in hospitals as they can't be discharged without an adequate care package and I wonder if these cars packages are materialistic because of cost? We also get the situation where specialist nursing care is free yet caring in a care home is not so how do we square that circle?

See that's exactly what I was getting at earlier. People with big money can afford to pass money on while they are still alive, fit and well.

People who have a modest amount of savings and an estate worth less than £200k, if they get ill and need care their estate is completely wiped out.

There is something wrong with the system. Same if someone is saving for a house and gets made unemployed they are expected to use their savings but if they'd managed to buy the house their savings are fine.

They system is warped and doesn't encourage people to try and better themselves or try for the next generation.

There is something wrong with the system. Same if someone is saving for a house and gets made unemployed they are expected to use their savings but if they'd managed to buy the house their savings are fine

You can own a house and have no savings. Under UC rules, if you own the home you live in then it is not counted as an asset for means testing. Second homes are.
An asset such as your primary residence is not counted as savings when you apply for benefits, and rightly so. You can't eat bricks. What would be the point in making someone sell the house they live in, to later claim a lot more in UC housing element later on down the line?
But, under UC, if you own your home then you wont get much in the way of help with your mortgage anyway. The little help you do get is time limited and is a loan.

I don't think it is time limited but, yes, nowadays it is a loan. It didn't used to be. You used to get your interest on mortgage paid by the state with no obligation to pay it back. In fact, at times, the official interest rate Govt paid exceeded the actual interest rate on the mortgage so it would be reducing the capital. How do I know? Because I worked in the business.

Just remember that if you got your money away you will only get the care someone else decides to pay for/do.
You will only get a funded care home place if you are not safe with 4 carer visits that may total less then 2 hours a day. Go on the elder care board to see just how bad that has to be. You may well be scared and lonely stuck in your chair the rest of the day depending on how much time your family can spare. If you are incontinent you will sit in your wet/shitty pad until the next carer comes.
You will have limited, if any, choice on where you go as admission is likely to be an emergency/ to get you out of a hospital bed. If family don't live near you won't be able to choose a home near them to facilitate visits. Until social services decide you need a care home someone will still need to manage your home, you'll just get personal care, not cleaning, maintenance or admin support like bill paying or sorting insurance etc. You'll be expected to sort that from attendance allowance yourself.
Self funders can choose where and when to go. They can choose the level of care and pay for whatever support they need and have it where they want it. We've had elderly parents on funded and self funded support and I know which I'd rather be.

I'm sorry to hear that you're planning to move elsewhere, @Papyrophile . You've built up a successful business which has employed people and genuinely contributed to the UK for your whole working life. I'm sure that with your personal values and dynamism you will continue to be an important part of your community during your retirement as well. You leaving is definitely the UK's loss.

But you should absolutely do what's right for you. And giving support to your DC is also absolutely the right thing to do: that's why we work and build throughout our lives. I do find it strange when people complain about parents giving money or help to their children and saying it's unfair. Family is fundamental to humans, much more so than a country. To expect otherwise is ignoring what humans fundamentally are.

It sounds a worry: that your DC has no home of their own and no job. You've spoken on another thread about the difficulty of stepping away from your business. Is there any way you could restructure it that would make it possible for your DC to run it, even in a smaller way? I'm sure you've been thinking about what is possible already!

I hope you find a good way forward, whatever that is.

The UK has double tax agreements with many countries. So if you move to one of those countries, you pay tax to your new country of residence on all your income - including UK pension income - and you don't pay tax to the UK. Likewise any inheritance tax would be payable to your country of residence according to their own tax laws - including for your UK assets - not the UK.

In return, citizens of those countries who move to the UK pay only UK tax instead of paying tax to their country of origin.

Thanks for your good wishes @strawberrybubblegum ... DC has always been welcome in the business having helped out since teen years and coming back when we need a casual, but it's not their field of interest and they want to live elsewhere -- better connected. But fear not, they are not homeless and are very employable with a useful skill. The goal is to use that as a stepping stone to another career, that is better rewarded but very competitive.

That's great. Sounds like they have a good path forward.