Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

thinking owning a house is a waste of time, as it just gets takenoff you when you get old/put in ahome

229 replies

ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana · 15/01/2011 23:30

one of my aunts has had to go into a care home, serious dementia needs fulltime help

but everything shes worked for and saved for looks liek it will be taken from her.

OP posts:
LadyThumb · 15/01/2011 23:36

Yes - it does get taken, no matter how hard you've worked/saved for it. The system is back-to-front........be frugal and lose the lot, or piss it all up and get taken care of!

I am now working on the premise that if I've got nothing, then they can't take it away from me!!

rinabean · 15/01/2011 23:38

So? She doesn't need it any more, and she can have the care that's best suited to her instead of relying on whatever the minimum the state will give is. And, throughout the rest of her life, she enjoyed having her house, right?

I think only people who are lucky enough to own their own houses would say this kind of thing. I'd swap with you any day. Renting is awful.

QuintessentialShadows · 15/01/2011 23:38

So, who is taking it?

curlymama · 15/01/2011 23:41

Sad for your Aunt.

It does seem incredibly unfair that you can work and save for something only for it to be taken away, but at the same time I think if you can afford to pay for care you need when you are old then you should.

I know i'm not making sense there, but I really can't see any fair way of doing it. Does anyone know if there's a way round it? Like putting the house in your childrens name or something like that?

animula · 15/01/2011 23:43

My bf explained to me the other day about putting your house in trust. But it all went in one ear and out the other. Apparently, however, that is what we should all be doing. It seems very alien, but he was insistent.

I hope things work out OK with your aunt, and that it's not too stressful for her and your family.

OldLadyKnowsNothing · 15/01/2011 23:43

No, there's no way round it, and neither should there be. If people spend their lives "saving for a rainy day" there's not much point in complaining when the rainy day arrives.

DioneTheDiabolist · 15/01/2011 23:47

Back in the day, what would happen is a member of the family would look after the elderly relative/home owner and they would inherit the house after that relative died.

Nowadays, the state/council/care giver owns the house once the home-owner goes into care. The care giver gets the house. If that is not a member of the family that is sad, but realistic. No?

ninedragons · 15/01/2011 23:47

Well, given that nobody is immortal, the alternative is that all this hard work becomes pure windfall profit for the next generation.

I don't see anything particularly fair about expecting the state to pay for care while you pass your assets on to people who haven't earned them.

curlymama · 15/01/2011 23:47

I didn't buy my house for a rainy day though, I bought it in the hope that I would have something to leave to my children. It seems unfair that someone who has chosen not to do that would be entitled to the same care if they were in aposition to be able to.

Maybe we should be able to choose whether we want standard state care or if we want fantastic private care if the need arises. It's the thing about that choice being made for you that I'm uncomfortable with.

whatdoiknowanyway · 15/01/2011 23:50

My dad had dementia. Had he lived longer his house would have been sold to pay for his care.
BUT
He spent his last days in a beautiful environment, surrounded by good people focused on making his life as happy and constructive as possible. They were a source of great strength and comfort to the rest of his family too.
He died as he chose to live all his life in great dignity.
Had he not been able to fund this himself through the sale of his house he would have been allocated a place in a lower quality home and would have been much less comfortable and more unhappy.
His house money bought him choice.
You could argue everyone should have the care he had automatically but its unlikely to happen.
I'm not going to take the risk for myself and am saving in the trust I can afford an equal standard of care for myself ( whilst of course supporting calls for government to provide the same level of care for all).

huddspur · 15/01/2011 23:50

The whole care for the elderly setup needs urgent reform

Original poster
ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana · 15/01/2011 23:57

well noone in the family can cARE for her 24/7

as everyone works

OP posts:
DioneTheDiabolist · 15/01/2011 23:58

Standard state care costs money too. I agree that old people need lots of care. The more the better. However, it is ridiculous to assume that the equity in their home should pay both for their care and leave the next generation a windfall.

Not on. And I am a right liberal, I am.

bubbleOseven · 15/01/2011 23:59

curlymama are you suggesting that there should be two different standards of care home. One sort for people who sold their home to pay for it and another sort for people with no money?

Original poster
ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana · 15/01/2011 23:59

agree with

"The system is back-to-front........be frugal and lose the lot, or piss it all up and get taken care of!"

the pissing it all up sounds appealing atm

OP posts:
animula · 16/01/2011 00:00

bubbleOseven - that's kind of what there is at the moment.

Care for the elderly should be a whole lot better than it is.

DioneTheDiabolist · 16/01/2011 00:00

OP, if everyone in the family works, then they have decided what their priorities are and where to direct their energies. They cannot moan when the people taking care of your aunt need paid.

SingleUse · 16/01/2011 00:01

i work in a nursing home, the standard of care given does not depend on whether you are state or personal funded!

ILoveItWhenYouCallMeBoo · 16/01/2011 00:02

ohnanna

why shouldn't we be providing for our own care when we are elderly? who should be paying for it?

supersalstrawberry · 16/01/2011 00:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bubbleOseven · 16/01/2011 00:03

"well noone in the family can cARE for her 24/7

well one person didn't have to care for her 24/7, you could have divided it up so that everybody did a bit.

where are her children in all this

mamatomany · 16/01/2011 00:03

So if we all take the attitude of feck it we won't save for or buy anything for them to take how is the care system going to be funded ? And what else would you spend your money on instead, you still need somewhere to live.

Can't have your cake and eat it.

SingleUse · 16/01/2011 00:04

not everyone has children!

jenandberry · 16/01/2011 00:04

I will have no qualms about selling my home to pay for care. Why should the state pay so when I have an assett to sell that is of no use to me when I am dead.

Original poster
ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana · 16/01/2011 00:05

dione, my aunt has worked all her life and paid her taxes, so really should be able to use the system shes paid into for years

OP posts: