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?

^ exactly!

Don't get Alzheimer's get an axe!

Hmmmmm.:)

This is how this country works.
Why are you here if you can't cope with it?
Is the bottom line that I think of. This system will be absolutely perfect and ideal for only about 2% of the population, you strike me as the kind of person for whom this would be a comforting thought.

I would choose this every time.

agree ilove. why should we pay more tax to cover someone's carehome fees, so that someone who may not even work inherit a load of money? why should wealth be focussed even more just in certain families (and I say this a a conservative voter). The OAP concerned should cover their own costs - noone covers my childcare fees or any other living costs i have, why should i pay for a rich OAP's just because she is old?

My grandparents lived in a council house. They were immigrants who worked all their lives, and hard. In the end they never needed to go into homes, but if they had, the state would have had to pay for that.
I really, really HATE this attitude of "hard working people who have made wise choices" versus "feckless lazy buggers".
It's not really like that.
The previous generation, the baby boomers tend to have large assets. Yes, if they have the assets, and need care, they need to sell their assets to pay for this.
My generation, many of us will not have any assets. I will probably never own my own home. That is not because I am feckless, but because by the time I wanted to buy a house, it was financially impossible.
It's the politics of envy again, reversed. The rewards for doing well in life and having a nice home are worth more than what you leave your kids. You also get a whole lifetime of being able to enjoy your owned home and the security and choices that brings you.
If you don't end up inheriting your parents house, then that's a shame. I doubt I will. I fully expect to have to sell my parents houses to pay for their care, and I am OK with that. If it leaves me with nothing, that's fine. It's their money, not mine.

Sorry, I meant "the previous generation to mine, eg my parents generation"-that wasnt clear.

My grandmother came to live with us and died in bed at our house. But as I was only 5 when she died, my brother 8 and my sister 2, nobody actually remembers her being at home with us. I vaguely remember seeing her once, and she frightened me, although I knew she was trying to be nice and was delighted to see me < sad face>. Both parents passed away now , but mum never mentioned anything about that time to me.
Later when I was older, Granddad came to live with us until he died aged 81. neither had dementia, though.

'It doesn't seem the state "reward" the elderly for working or being wise with money either '

And you consider benefits claimaints entitled? Where is it the government's responsibility to 'reward' certain people? FFS.

Alright then, not penalise the prudent would be a better way to look at it.

How is it penalising? And why the assumption that anyone without assets or savings enough was not prudent, feckless, etc?

I'm just trying to get my head round this because again, my father worked and worked, did without, was prudent, etc and doesn't see using that money or assets to pay for his own care or my mother's as a penalty. He sees it as good fortune he is able to fund the best care he can and have more choice in the matter in it than those who are reliant on the state.

And providing he does end up in a better position for all his toil it has been worthwhile, the tread is about ending up in the same position as those who did not save, which is happening.
I do think if you reach a certain age with no savings, no assets and nobody prepared to step up and assist you then you've got to wonder what those people did with their lives. I know a few people who will end up in that position and having known them for a very long time it's nobody's fault but their own.

Another reasonably (but not crazy) high earner here who objects to people wanting to raise taxes to fund their inheritance when I won't inherit anything myself.

If you want to use the 'it's not fair' logic, then you could look at it like this. I work hard and studied hard. If I have to pay really high taxes to fund increasing residential elderly care so people can avoid using their assets and allow their children to inherit I will have less money, which will make it even harder to ever buy a house of the size we need for the family. Others who work less hard and earn less or as hard will also inherit and have more than me. That's not 'fair' either.

HUGE DISCLAIMER: I don't really believe earnings always reflect how hard you have worked etc. just trying to use the same logic as the 'not fair' brigade to show that sometimes life isn't fair. It's just the way it is and is sometimes inevitable if you want a welfare state that is an effective safety net that can ensure decent care for all. Some pay, others who can't, don't. It allows the care for those who can't o e sustainable.

Having said that, does anyone know projected costs of care in the future, how much it would increase taxes if fully funded by the state etc, because I don't.

Even the NHS doesn't treat everyone for everything with all treatment options. It decides what to treat based on the money it has.

to those who say we shouldn't penalise the prudent hard workers/savers. Rubbish. My mother's estate would be worth £500k - largely due to the value of her house which she was lucky to buy when housing was cheap - its increased to this value not as a result of any effort she put into it - but because of rising demand for housing.

And as was the case for many of her generation, she has done very little in the way of paid work.

I, on the other hand work really hard - i have to in order to pay our large mortgage - so why should i work even harder to cover any increased tax bill to cover her care home fees?

I am not of the 'it's not fair' brigade, but more of the I won't be saving and going without in order to leave something to my children, would rather enjoy my money whilst I am alive. I am certain I will still have money to be spent on my care regardless.

Maybe it's the mindset that needs to change? Some people really do want to save to pass on to their children and go without in life in order to do this, I guess people need to assume this won't be happening.

I have no problem with giving all my father's assets, pension and savings to the care home. He is self funding to the tune of £800 per week. The care home he is in is the third one we have tried. The first two were so bad I wouldn't have left my cat there. £800 is the average cost of a self funded place in our area.

The local authority will fund £400 per week only, but not for anyone whose savings/pension/house sale money will cover the full fees. There are some residents in my dad's home who are state funded. The self funders subsidise the state funded residents.

When my dad's money runs out there is no guarantee that he will be allowed to stay where he is. That will depend on whether there are enough self funders to subsidise him. If not he will be moved to one of the cheaper homes.

There is nothing I can do about that because I don't have £400 per week to top up. He may be allowed to stay, he may not - it won't be my decision.

What happens when the old person's funds run out is a huge worry to many families.

Also, when you have no funds, you are at the mercy of the LA and where they want to place you. Don't like the place? Tough shit. We went to visit a lovely care home for my grandpa - very high staff patient ratio, beautiful surroundings and a plethora of activities. My grandpa got placed somewhere very average. The standard of care is acceptable but if we could afford excellent, we sure as hell would!

I pray that when my parents are old, they have enough to fund their own care so that they (and I) can choose the best possible place for them.

I think it comes down to the fact that the present bar is set to low, if it was raised from 23k to about 100k then it would be much fairer.

I have had to pay off my fathers mortgage due to an endowment shortfall and if he goes into care I will lose it all.

My SIL's grandfather went into a care home (dementia) and the state paid after his savings had gone. He would have had to sell his 500k home, but he'd gifted it to his daughter 10 years earlier, and paid his daughter a rent, so he was getting no benefit from house. It was done for inheritance tax planning rather than care home fees.

Youbrokemysmoulder - you should register a charge at your fathers house for the amount you paid towards the shortfall.

I think it comes down to the fact that the present bar is set to low, if it was raised from 23k to about 100k then it would be much fairer.

If they do that for older people, then they should raise the bar for younger people in residental care homes too. So, watch your taxes rise. You'll still be paying for it somehow.

I wouldnt mind my taxes going up a bit though. If i lose all that money though and the 50 k or so from the sale of his house, I will never own my own though.

And tough luck I imagine a lot of people will think but then someone else will have to pay for my care as well as I will have nothing to sell. Am already 40 and have been renting all my life. As will most people who werent lucky enough to buy when the going was good.

With a growing elderly population and home owning becoming so expensive, taxes won't be "going up a bit", it will need to be a lot.

'And providing he does end up in a better position for all his toil it has been worthwhile, the tread is about ending up in the same position as those who did not save, which is happening.
I do think if you reach a certain age with no savings, no assets and nobody prepared to step up and assist you then you've got to wonder what those people did with their lives. I know a few people who will end up in that position and having known them for a very long time it's nobody's fault but their own.'

So because of these few people you know, you assume everyone who has no savings or assets in old age is a feckless loser? Nice.

Rewarding the prudent with subsidised care: okay, let's apply that to care across the board. No more NHS for people who abuse alcohol or smoked. But what about those who were less than prudent in their youth, used to smoke or drink too much and develop health problems later on from it? Should they not receive the same care as those who were always 'prudent'?

Is the government here to determine state-funded provision of care based on pounds and pence or their own version of morality?

So, is it not the case, as a relative of mine claims, that there are LA-funded people in the higher value/'nicer' care homes sitting next to the self-funded?

I always thought you didn't get much choice if you weren't self-funding, but he insists that's not the case.
He is paying for his wife, and still lives in the family home.