to ask why should I pay for someone else's mum's care home?

[Ilovexmastime]

I was just reading my DM's copy of The Express (I like to raise my blood pressure every so often) and came across this article: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/368525

It is an article about spending money that we give to the EU on old age care. There is a case study bit in it where a woman is complaining that they had to sell her mum's £140,000 bungalow to pay her £100,000 costs in a care home.

Am I missing something here? Why should I, as a taxpayer, pay for her mum's care home when she has enough money to cover it herself? It wasn't like her mother was ever going to leave the care home and move back home, so why not sell it?

And we haven't even touched on how the people themselves may not wish to be cared for by their children. My parents don't even like me making a cup of tea for myself, even though my mother has trouble standing and walking. Dh's grandmother gets herself up before the carer who comes to do that as she doesn't want to be a burden and make a fuss.

With cutbacks some of the state paid caters are given just 15 minutes for each visit on their rounds. It just isn't adequate.

I would hate to are for my parents, and they would hate for me to do it. I would however help to arrange for as much help as they need and it wouldn't occur to me to worry about 'losing' my inheritance. Their money is their resource to support them and give them comfort.

I do agree with you ssd but this argument goes round in circles about if someone has been frugal/feckless, etc and, with respect, you might feel differently if your mum had worked and saved for her whole life to buy a house (as governments encouraged people to do back then) only to see it all go and not give her any benefit over someone who had chosen to spend all their money as they went along.

Can I just say I have not had to face this situation, have no axe to grind and am just being a bit devil's advocate-y, I can see this argument all ways round.

Exactly kick. My Dad has been without heating since Boxing Day because those bastards Eon are such useless twats, but will he let me get involved? No way. We eventually persuaded him to have an alarm button round his neck, but the one time he has fallen since having it, he spent 45 minutes shuffling on his arse round the bed to get to the phone to ring me. When I asked him why he didn't press the button he said he didn't want to bother anyone. The fact that all they would have done was phone me seems to have been lost on him.

Absulutely right, Kickass.
This hovering and anticipation of inheritance is appalling and rather ridiculous.

I've heard people actually saying that their mum's care home fees have 'cost' them 10s of 1000s of ££. When I've questioned this, they've said it was because the house had had to be sold. So it's cost your mum then .

It shocks me and I'd hate to think my mother or my FIL might be thinking they had to watch their pennies, or feel guilty about needing care because it impinged on my expectations.

And and and - just because our parents may have worked hard to achieve their high-equity house (actually they probably bought at the right time, with a low mortgage, and happen to have sat in it while property prices saw an unprecedented and possibly never-to-be-repeated rise) - doesn't make us as those people's children any more entitled to a chunk of cash than the children of those who've either never owned property, or happen to have owned it in a part of the country that hasn't seen these inflated increases.
We've had nothi g to do with the 'work' or lack of our parents have contributed towards the value of their house, and there is no moral reason we should see the cash when it can be put to good use.

shotgun I agree with you...my only caviat is the person who has given up a career/job where they pay their own pension contributions/marriage/decent life/etc to care for aged parent[s] at home for a long time ,who may lose the roof over their head to pay for eventual carehome fees and/or death duties : they have my total sympathy

OP, don't read the Daily Express. It's a heap of utter shite and leads to selfish and grasping attitudes like the one expressed in your post.

3littlefrogs - i fought and fought for respite when mum was at home. It was horrendous, I think I had 2 weekends in nearly 3 years. I kept telling her sw that I wasn't coping and that I thought that she needed to go into a home, but it seemed to take forever. The only reason dm finally went into a home was because I literally broke. I stopped going to work, avoided leaving the house, stopped taking my dd to nursery just stayed in my room with dd, for about a fortnight. Luckily my best friend forced me to the drs and the dr prescribed me some ads and told me i had to speak to DM's CPN. I rang her the next day and just cried, told her what I had told the Dr, what I felt and within a week a space had been found for mum.

The biggest problem is the services for adult care are so underfunded and understaffed that if you appear to be coping they will just leave you to it. Mums SW told me once that she was supposed to have 25 cases and was currently dealing with 85. The only people she ever got to see were the ones that were in crisis.

I agree that there is no moral reason why the 'children' should get an inheritance. They are not entitled to it. But I don't think it's about what the children want, what they want is irrelevant.

What matters is what the person who owns the money or asset wants. It belongs to them, they should have a right to say what happens to their own property.

They would have the right if they spent it all before they needed residential care, and they should continue to have the right after they become ill. It's wrong that a person has their property taken from them just because they become to disabled to live without significant help.

People are told that the money is paying for care fees, but if they are forced to self fund, and they are contributing up to double what the state is contributing for exactly the same thing, then it amounts to no more than a tax on illness.

Wewishyou - carers deserve a medal, I can't imagine how tough it was for you.

All those who say you shouldn't bother saving for your old age - surely if your mother had a sum of money on hand to fund private respite care, a private nursing home place and so on, things would have been a lot easier for you?

My Gran spent several years in a beautiful care home, like a posh hotel, because it was funded from the cost of her property. It was considerably nicer than anything that state funding could have given her. By the time she died there was very little left, but my dad wouldn't have wanted the money spent any other way.

My friend has two disabled daughters but is privately wealthy and has been able to pay for home improvements, decent wheelchairs and so on, leaving her in a far better position than someone struggling to provide for their children with the help of the state.

So yes, there is safety net for those who cannot pay. We live in a welfare state. But don't forget that money does buy you a better standard of living, even in a care home. There is a reason to work hard and save your money.

yes - those with money can probably stay in their houses for longer than those without. many people would be able to pay for a higher level of in-house care which would mean they could stay in their home much more easily. Whatever the cut off point is for a benefit, there will be people who are just on the wrong side of it, who feel that they have somehow lost out. The problem with care is that it does provide a home for someone as well as nursing/caring. No matter what your age, it costs money to have a roof over your head.

How people have ended up without the means to support thmeselves isn't really relevant imo. They may have been low earners, or high rollers spendthrifts. If they are too old/ill to work, then the welfare state should support them. If they have enough money (whether cash or capital which can be rleeased due to a house sale) to support thmeselves then it should be spent on their care - they may want to pass it on to their family, but I'm too left wing to think that they should be able to.

What is the amount that people can have in savings before they need to self-fund care? I think it's several thousand. If they really wanted to give their children support and security, it would be better if they did it when their children were starting out in life, not in their 50s, as they probably would be.

So - there are two elderly men, one has a couple of (grown) children, he's worked all his life and bought a home, hoping that his children will benefit when he dies - the other has been in poor health and only able to work part time his whole life, now they both need homes. The 'sensible' one's children won't inherit a house Not really that fair is it?

I worked in nursing homes for years, one of the worse things about it is the worry it caused people.

We had a couple who came in as the husband could no longer look after himself and his wife. He was 98 she was in her mid 80s. He did nothing but worry about what would happen to his dw if the money from the sale of the house ran out.

Lots of elderly people worry about it. It doesn't matter how many times you explain to them that it will be fine and funded by the government

Well op why should I pay for your child's benefit, why should I pay for thers to receive benefits or health care

My grandad is currently in hospital waiting to move to a nursing home ( not that likely to make it tbh :( ) he's self funding a care home which we don't object to as he is receiving good care but we do object to the lack of choice. The SW tells us what's available and that's our choice ( choice of 2 within 20 miles when looking at a care home. Nursing home wise there's no choice. We've agreed to up to 40 miles to get him out of hospital but only option so far (6 weeks of waiting) is the nearest to us but a twin room and he may not be suitable for that. The other issue with lack of choice is the price varies by £300 a week and as far as we can tell the facilities don't vary much ( although grandad is rarely awake so won't use much anyway)

Have I fallen asleep and woken up in a different world where state benefits are no longer means tested? Medical care in a nursing home will always be paid by the state. The provision of accommodation and food has always been means tested, and should remain that way.

The sense of entitlement of disappointed beneficiaries is astounding. the national debt that is still building up is going to have to be repaid by our children.
Remember them?
The ones that will have to pay the earth for their pensions?
The ones that will never see equity in their homes build up like their parent's and grandparent's homes?
the ones that will have to work until they're 67 or later, and won't get to retire early like many aged in their 60s and 70s have?
The ones who can't get a job because their parents and grandparents went on a personal and state fuelled credit binge mortgaging their futures and making homes unaffordable (oh the glee in the DM etc when house prices rise, when housing is as basic a need as a loaf of bread)?

Let them pay for it all.

I feel for my kids, I really do. Cut them some slack

The sense of entitlement of disappointed beneficiaries is astounding. the national debt that is still building up is going to have to be repaid by our children

Collaborate I'm completely with you there. I want everyone to be well looked after in their old age, particularly if they're in ill health or otherwise vulnerable.

But that is one thing.

Preserving an "inheritance" or an "estate" for middle-aged children is another thing entirely. I don't see why the general funds available for supporting what people actually need should be undermined or diverted towards preserving and "estate" for heirs. they bang on about the "family home" as if they're aristocracy looking to inherit Chatsworth or something, when in reality, it's unlikely that any adult children will have lived in the so-called family home for years. And if they have, and are dependents in that way, then the house is protected.

When or if I need to go into a nursing home, I won't be able to live in my current house. Of course it should be sold to fund my move to my next home - be that another house or a residential care home, or sheltered accommodation. My DS knows that, as I know that this is the deal with my own parents.

Here's an analogy -- I'm in the middle of a complicated job relocation. Should I demand that the state (ie all of us taxpayers) subsidises me keeping my current home because < cue violins > it's my family home, the only one my DS has known (even though he's now independent and travelling the world for a bit) while I also purchase another home in the town I'm moving to?

See, put it like that and I think you see the illogic of the preservation of children's inheritances in this way. Just a lot of greedy people, in my view.

This from kissangel is the most sensible post on this thread:

How people have ended up without the means to support thmeselves isn't really relevant imo. They may have been low earners, or high rollers spendthrifts. If they are too old/ill to work, then the welfare state should support them. If they have enough money (whether cash or capital which can be rleeased due to a house sale) to support thmeselves then it should be spent on their care

I guess the natural conclusion here is if you want to preserve the inheritance for your children you can pop over to Switzerland for a cocktail. Still keen ? Thought not.

Excellent post, CollieDog.

As far as I see it we either have a NHS to look after people who are ill, sick or too old to look after themselves or we don't. If we do then why should old people to ill to be left alone be treated any differently from anybody else.

The point is what if they aren't ill just old ?

I really don't think that the majority of this debate is about inheritance. It's about what the person who owns their saving or assets wants.

Oddhouskeeping, your post is really sad and I feel for your Grandad. If someone is going to self fund, then that's fine as long as they have some choice, and as long as it does get them more than the minimum, especially as it has already been stated by other posters who work in the system that people who self fund pay up to double what the state will pay for exactly the same thing.

That's where it becomes unfair. When someone has to spend their life savings and it achieves nothing. It's not about middle aged people being able to benefit from a lump sum of money that they didn't earn and have no right to.

Sashh, in the example you gave, you are right it's not fair. But the second mans unfairness is dealt to him by ill health which is one of those things that can't be helped, the first mans unfairness is dealt to him by rules from the government that don't have to be there. As long as they both end up with the care they need, that's the most important thing

How is it fair that someone can be forced to sell everything they have worked for and they are no better off than someone who has made different choices with their money? Remember that the person who is state funded and not forced into selling their home may be in that position because they gave their children money when they were younger, or because they set up trusts for their grandchildren, or because they went on lots of holidays.

If they are just old and not ill, then that's different and they have choice. They can choose to pay for care in their own home because they aren't a danger to themselves and are unlikely to need 24 hour care.

viviennemary the NHS isn't there to take care of people who are too old to look after themselves though.
I completely agree with collaborate and colliedog. I don't understand the issue with selling one home to fund another. Either way your money is invested in a roof over your head. And if you don't have the funds (cash or assets) then the state steps in. That seems reasonable to me.