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?

I wouldn't want to at the mercy of the postcode lottery.

*to be at

shotgun no choice in homes here whether self funded or state paid. Nursing homes especially are dependant on who dies next. My Grandad has the offer of a twin room at £800+ a week (still waiting on home to do assessment & accept him. He could have gone anywhere within about 40 miles of home.

I agree with expat.

Why should I and my kids pay for your granddad's care so you get your inheritance?

Why is buying a house a 'wise investment' if that investment isn't then used? You think it's a wise investment but only if you get the rewards, yes?

I doubt I'll ever own my own home. Generations before me have made billions from booming property prices and now young people can't get on the ladder without, er inheritances, etc. But I do pay a higher tax rate and contribute to society, and to my landlords 'investments'.

The whole system is up the wall. It needs a complete re write.

It's reading posts like 3littlefrogs that's makes me determined to not end up in this position.

You can pay for yourself, and still end up with no choice, and then end up being moved on because your money has run out because you have had to subsidise other people! It's outrageous!

Arguing that people should have to pay for their own care is one thing. Forcing them into paying for other people's is another thing completely.

Clouds Do you also resent paying for younger adults who need residential care?

Not at all, because I rightly pay for that through taxation. I pay the same rate of tax as anyone else with the same income as me, so it's completely different.

I hate all this talk of either you buy a house and be sensible or you spend spend spend and go on holidays

my parents never owned a house as they couldnt afford it, they didnt spend spend spend or go on holiday either

so many posters on MN shy away from calling those on benefits scroungers as at last they have learned this is crap, but they still think if your parents dont own a house they must have been feckless with money

too many narrow minds here

I own a house as I got a 100% mortgage at the time, my parents paid rent all their lives as they couldn't, neither of us are big spenders or holidaymakers as we couldn't bloody afford it, but neither of us are better than the other either

my mum had free care towards the end of her life, I'll have to pay for mine...thats just life

clouds, you writing this stinks

"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."

what a complete load of shit, what age are you, 10??

do you realise many many people dont give their kids money or set up trustfunds or go on lots of holidays because they cant actually afford any of this??

SOME PEOPLE DONT MAKE CHOICES WITH THEIR MONEY AS THEY HAVENT ENOUGH MONEY TO GET THE BLOODY CHOICE

My Dad may need to go into care at some point. He happened to buy a house in the early 70's for about £6,000. That house is now worth about £300,000. If he had been renting a house of a similar standard then he would have spent, since his mortage was paid off in 1990, about £276,000 in rent, which would have been lining someone's pocket. So he is in the fortunate position of having a financial cushion should he need to go into care. If he doesn't need to go into care, then my brother and I inherit the property.

Life's lottery I suppose.

Of course I realise that ssd.

But do you honestly think that everyone who can afford it will always have a large asset by the time they are in their 80s? Do you think that it's only poor people who have had to struggle financially for their entire lives that will be left without an expensive house to seel by the time they need care?

Because if you do, you are wrong.

The post that you quoted me on, I wrote trying to make the point that sometimes people who can afford to buy a house choose not to, and when they do that, and they intentionally leave themselves without the funds to cover a care one, then they are in exactly the same position as someone who could never heave dreamt of affording it.

So with that in mind, do you think that it is wrong for people to spend their money how they want to, or do you think everyone should save every penny they can incase they need to pay for care home fees? Do you only people who have always been poor should receive elderly care, or do you think anyone who needs it should be given the care they need?

As for your bollocks about how old I am, I fully intend to be one of those people that qualifies for state care by the time I'm that old. My grandfather was one of those people. He died recently, having made wise decisions with his money so that his children would benefit from his earnings and wouldn't have to pay a huge inheritance tax bill. Had he needed it, he would most likely have been given a state funded care home place, because he got rid of his money well before the time came that the government could take it from him. People do this all the time. Do you really not see that?

Not everyone who qualifies for a state funded place has spent their lives unable to afford to buy a home.

but they still think if your parents dont own a house they must have been feckless with money

Reading through this thread, I haven't seen anyone say this. The only people that are going on about 'feckless' are the ones who are trying to point out that people can work very hard and still not be able to afford to own a home.

Of course, this thread has gotten quite long and I may have missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone saying that people who are entitled to state funded care are feckless. You are making assumptions as to what you think people believe and you are wrong.

He happened to buy a house in the early 70's for about £6,000.

He didn't happen to buy a house for £6,000, that was what they cost in the 70's and he was most likely earning £1,000 a year, he could no more afford it than people can afford £300,000 today.
I'm sorry to call anyone feckless because that is the wrong term, but poor financial planners would be more accurate, at a time when the current elderly lived there is absolutely no excuse for ending up on your arse and if they have done you've got to question why.

The reason to buy your own home is the fact that once its paid off you can live rent free with no fear of being asked to leave
Elderly people in care homes probably paid off their mortgage aged 50-55
And are probable 85-90 before they go into the home
So even if they are in the minority who go into a home, and the further minority who then live long enough that the fees exceed the value of the home
They will still have lived rent-free in the place of their choice for30-40 years
Why would that be a waste?
It's madness to impoverish yourself on the off chance that your assets may need to be spent on your care
You'd still be quids in anyway

Not at all, because I rightly pay for that through taxation. I pay the same rate of tax as anyone else with the same income as me, so it's completely different.

Sorry but I don't see the difference. You pay for social care through your taxes, you don't get to pick and choose who gets it. So, tell me what is the difference between a younger adult who suddenly finds themself (through illness or accident) requiring 24 hour residental care and an older adult?

There isn't a difference between a younger and an older adult who needs care. And there is no difference between a home owner adult who needs care ad a renter adult that needs care.

If someone needs care, they should get the care that is appropriate for them, regardless of how much or little they have in the bank.

I think there is a bit of an elephant in the room here.

People who do not own their own home, by definition rent.

Typically the landlord of such renters will have become quite rich on those rental proceeds over a lifetime.

The problem is that, yes, taxpayers are not getting a good deal, since they are paying twice over to:

1. Make the landlord rich
2. Care for the tenant in old age.

I expect (1) is slightly larger than (2).

So who was it that sold off all the council houses ?

Ask Tony Blair how many buy to let properties he owns ?

Erm, not everyone who rents is claiming benefits to pay for it! The majority of people pay their rent out of their own money, not the taxpayers.

IMHO a solution would be to provide a very basic level of accommodation (dormitory-style) and a good level of care for everyone - sort of like the old cottage hospitals that used to exist. Everyone would be entitled to this - but there would be no choice and no fancy add-ons.

IF one wanted one's own room, take one's own furniture, have trips out, the manicurist and choice of menu etc etc then those homes would take private funders ONLY.

This would discourage people trying to get rid of their assets because they would see some point to financing themselves (ie being in a nicer place).

I have no objection to having to pay for care if the family cannot step up to the mark, but it is certainly unfair that paying confers no advantage whatsoever.

Paying does confer an advantage. You can choose where you want to go and when you want to go. You don't have to wait for someone to decide you merit a place.

If someone needs care, they should get the care that is appropriate for them, regardless of how much or little they have in the bank.

In order to do so, you'd have to hugely raise taxes, not a bit but an enormous amount. I bet you don't have the foggiest about how much social care costs the tax payer. I do. It's a fucking fortune.

In my mil's case it confers no advantage whatsoever.

She is in a home costing £800 a week. It is quite grotty but almost the cheapest in their (not very upmarket) town. In a couple of years mil's savings and most of her house will be gone.

In the room next to her is a man who I know is council funded. He wanders around in a vest and a nappy banging on other people's doors and trying to barge in.

Can you imagine putting up with that in a hotel?

LettyAshton - even if you are self funding in a nice home, trips out and the services of a manicurist/chiropodist are extras and have to be paid for on top of the fees. You still have to pay to replace the clothes that are destroyed or lost in the laundry system, you still have to pay for toiletries and treats.

I would be really interested to know what proportion of people on this thread are either caring for a demented relative themselves or have a relative in a care home. I think most people have no idea until they find themselves in the situation.

Paying does confer an advantage. You can choose where you want to go and when you want to go. You don't have to wait for someone to decide you merit a place.

No advantage here. Grandad went in a care home that had a free space luckily it was a nice one & is currently waiting for a nursing home place that could be up to 40 miles away and cost between £750 and £1000 a week minimum ( going off their website). He has been offered a bed in a twin room in a home in our town but not sure if they'll think he's ok to share.