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

[ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana]

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.

Quote "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

Please don't forget not everybody has had the money in the past to own their own homes/ and now in actual fact, due to lower income jobs. They haven't 'piss it all up', they may have only had enough funds to may bills, rent and food etc!!

If your aunts home means so much to you all why not all get together and buy it, of course if you have the funds to do so.

Thanks pippop..you know about these things! we will. I know it's complicated. It might turn out to be very complicated.. we'llget there though. It's been a lot of sacrifice and they will benefit.

Don't forget she can always sell her house and blow the money on drugs and toyboys on a cruise. She doesn't have to go into a care home. She worked. She has a choice.

When my parent were young they always said i never want to be a burden put me in a home and visit on sundays.
Now they are old and infirm and no longer able to cope along they hate the idea of a home. My dad even cried after his stroke thinking he would be shoved in a home. For 6 years i have cared for them in their own home going backwards and forwards from mine to theirs several times a day (about 5 miles away) but now even that is not enough.

So now their house and our house are bing sold and we are buying a place to house us all. We cannot afford to do it without the sale of their home but with both we should be able to get a house with a 2 bed annex.

Not the answer for everyone but no parent of mine is going to spend the last of their life being cared for by strangers.

boo, that situation would be slightly differnt imo, because the needs of the two neighbours at the time one was renting and one claiming hb would be different. There would be a reason why one could afford rent and one was on housing benefit. But the need of two identical elderly patients would be the same. They would both have exactly the same reasons for needing that care at the time that it was given. The thing with the care home situation is that two people could have had identical opportunities to earn and provide for themselves but one may have chosen not to. They may have chosen to rent all thier lives and buy luxuries instead of going without to pay a mortgage.

There is really no need to twist this to make it sound like I'm benefit bashing, I'm not.

I do think it's unfair that one person has to pay for it and another doesn't, that's just my opinion.

One other very relevant point that no-one has mentioned is that with people living longer these days. very often, their own children are simply too old to care for them.

Canstpel, are you aware you could apply for Direct Payments through your local authority to pay you for the care you provide your parents, as long as they are under the threshold of £ 23,500 each and you don't live in the same house. Of course they have to be eligible for a service. Also that if your parents did have to go into care, ie they need nursing intervention and it was above and beyond perhaps what you could provide, your joint home with your parents could still be considered if they go into care.

no the two people in the houses would have the same neds, the need for shelter.

teh two people in teh nuring home may have vastly different needs depending on their health.

why do you think the two people in the house would have different needs? you could say that they had identical earning opportunities couldn't you? i don't really understand where you are getting thsi idea that the nursing home scenario is different.

curly you don't sound as though you're benefit bashing but you definately sound as though you would like the person who doesn't pay for their care to receive inferior treatment.

What do you think should happen in a situation where one persons care is funded and the other person pays for their own care? Genuine question.

Curly, you are benefit bashing. Those working in jobs that enabled them to buy their homes are entitled to more satisfactory care in old age than those who didn't earn enough or who were SAHMs.

People are not treated any different but the private funding people will always get the best rooms!!!!

Space i know there is a direct payment thing but i have choosen to care for them myself
They would qualify but would hate to have to have strangers coming in and out their home. Hell my mum wont even answer the phone unless she knows who is calling.
I know we are also risking our home if we buy together but it is the only other option and it is a huge commitment as my mum is not that old at only 74 and i could be still caring for her in my retirement.

Private funding people have a choice. That is the difference.

You Canspel can be employed and paid by the local authority, therefore no strangers just you, it is called Direct Payments. You cannot live a the same address, in most cases anyway. Perhaps look into it.

Night night.

"One other very relevant point that no-one has mentioned is that with people living longer these days. very often, their own children are simply too old to care for them."

That's very true. When my mum is 85, I'll be 60; not that old, but too old to, say, lift her and probably lacking the energy to be a full time carer.

The real problem is that people are living too long, many propped up with a cocktail of pills and not in inconsiderable discomfort, if not outright pain. If a lot of them stopped taking the meds they'd be dead in a week. Instead they stagger on in some home that stinks of pee and death, bemoaning the fact that their home's been sold. It has to be. The welfare state was not set up with this longevity in mind.

Successive governments tell me I want to live longer, but I just think why? I'd rather have 70 good years and drop dead with a G&T in my hand than have another 20 in poor health.

It's late, I'm obviously not putting myself across very well here!

Boo, I did say that earning opportunities could be the same for the older two people, at least I meant to. But for the people in the same houses, one renting privately and one on hb, there could be a variety of reasons why that could be. One could have a degree in a high earning job, the other may have been made redundant from their high earning job, or simply unable to earn enough to pay full rent. For whatever reason.

I realise two elderly patients could need different levels of care, but either way they still both need care, and imo, should still both get it.

I stated at the start of the thread that I can see both sides of the arguement. Part of me feels that I shouldn't have to pay higher taxes to provide inheritance for some rich persons children, but part of me feels that it's unfair that a house should be taken away from a family because it's owner needs care.

Bubble, I don't think that a person who doesn't pay for care should recieve inferior treatment, and I have said that already. I think it should work in the same way as education, quality care available to everyone, but if someone chooses to pay for something different then they can. In the same way that a person could choose private healthcare, or private education. But if they chose not to, then they could still access care.

Thanks for the info space but unless we live in the smae house i wouldn't be able to be their 24/7 as i have a husband and 2 teenage children and due to the number of falls my dad is having how they do need someone their 24/7. As it is i spent the whole of last weekend with him up the hospital as he fell and knocked himself out.

Isn't this argument a bit dated now? Is there talks to change all this?

The current system is seen as unfair and isn't there debates by those in power on how to change to a better system?

I think I heard something about everybody that can afford it paying £8k or something when they retire, regardless of their needs and that would cover the cost of everyone. Of course those who haven't saved/invested for the future still won't pay anything but the argument was that no one would be forced to sell their home.

This happened to dh's grandmother, horrible situation for dhs mum to be in. She was responsible for the allowed £20k from the sale of the property to use to buy things such as clothes etc (obv. for dh's grandmother) and she had to keep records of every penny spent, caused her a lot of stress and worry in case she put a foot wrong. This was on top of the stress of having a mother that had had a stroke and was trapped within her own body.

That sort of added pressure needs to be taken away from family members who have enough to deal with.

"But for the people in the same houses, one renting privately and one on hb, there could be a variety of reasons why that could be. One could have a degree in a high earning job, the other may have been made redundant from their high earning job, or simply unable to earn enough to pay full rent"

and same for the two elderly people yes? one could have had a high earning job and one minimum wage all their lives. it is no different. the two people in houses both started off at school with the same opportunities infront of them, they chose different paths or life threw them a lemon. either way they NEED to be housed, one can pay her rent, one claims housing benefit. it is no different.

the house isn't being taken away from te family, it doesn't belong to them, it belongs to the elderly person. no-one has aright to their parents' house unless it is left in the will.

I would like to see the threshold raised on what they are allowed to keep. At the moment it is only 16k (i think) and i think it should be raised to around 100k. That way the really rich pay but those who have worked all their lives get to keep some of what they have worked for.

I dont think it is ever going to happen though as the country just cant afford it.

Dione really, please read what I have actually written. Where have I said Those working in jobs that enabled them to buy their homes are entitled to more satisfactory care in old age than those who didn't earn enough or who were SAHMs.'

You are making it up.

Boo, but doesn't the elderly person have the right to do what they want with their property?

I understand what you are saying about the two people thing, you are right. I was coming at it not from a point of view with someone on benefits in mind, but more from thinking of two people that could have earned exactly the same throughout their lives, and just chosen to spend it differntly. One gets to 80 after years of paying off a mortgage and putting anything spare into a savings account, the other has got to 80 after years of renting, travelling and general expensive living. One has got to enjoy the benefits of the money they have earned, one has been able to live in a house they own but has bought nothing except a boiler and other things to maintain the house in the hope that they would be able to pass it on to their dcs or dgc.

Can you not see how that would seem like it wasn't worth bothering to buy a house? Or at least that it wasn't worth keeping that house once you reach a certain age?

Agree with curly and cantspel. People are very unwise to cuestión inheritance. Significant disincentive. Why should anyone inherit my home in that case? Including the state? they haven't paid for it, nobody on those thread paid for it, WE paíd for it. I want to do with it what i want to do with it. I will have paíd enough by then.

A "child"'s inheritance is whatever is left when the last parent dies. It's not what said parent was "worth" at the peak.

'I will have paíd enough by then'

You might not have, you might have thousands of pounds to pay out in care fees - which you may have to sell your house to pay for.