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?

[hatgirl]

Ivykaty your grandmother must have had over £23k in savings then?

[Crinkle77]

I suppose the frustrating thing is if you work hard, pay your taxes and save for your old age then you get penalised for it. On the other hand if you don't work or waste all your money then you get free care in your old age. Although I suspect that the daughter was probably thinking about her inheritance more than anything

[ivykaty44]

Yes hatgirl she stuffed money under the bed for a rainy day...

[Viviennemary]

Why should people pay for their care in old age. It's no different from being in hospital at any age. It's discrimination against the elderly.

[kickassangel]

My parents are reasonably wealthy and I live thousands of miles away. When/if they need care I assume that their assets will cover the cost of care. That could mean that I end up inheriting nothing, but I am not counting on an inheritance as part of my financial planning. What worries me though is what would happen if their money ran out. Would they need to move to a cheaper givt care home? Or would the govt pay for their care in the (presumably) nicer place they had been paying for?

[ivykaty44]

Quite literally - I am not being funny

[Catchingmockingbirds]

I've often wondered about this, does the quality of care increase if you paid for care through a house sale rather than a place being funded through tax money? Or is it the same care homes and the same treatment offered for both?

[CharlW1]

Great debate Ilovexmastime and I do agree with a lot of what you are saying. What money gives you is a choice - the state give you £420 a week for social care if you can not afford it - this means basically going to a home that is usually no more than one of God's waiting rooms. Decent homes usually cost a lot more than this so you have to pay or 'top up' the amount the state give you. If someone has the money why wouldn't you pay to go into a better home - you can't take your money with you and no one should expect their parents to receive sub standard care just for the sake of getting an inheritance!

[ivykaty44]

It will depend on what your needs are assessed as and where there is space to put you.

Even if you pay and want to go somewhere they may not take you if they can't look after your requirements

[foxy6]

I am buying My own home but not as something to pass on to the children. I have 5 so they wouldn't get much each anyway, but so that they have a safe secure home while growing up and hopefully when the mortgage is paid I will have a bit more money when they all leave home for myself and a few treats in life, which I currently don't get I work hard but its a low wage so I doubt ill have any savings in old age and will proberly have to sell My home to fund a care home if needed. I don't mind. My home is for My children while they need it. hopefully they will grow and have homes of there own.
you can not expect the state to pat for everyone's care homes as with an aging population. this will become unstainable without Hugh tax rises for everyone. unfortunately we have always had to subsides those who don't pay there way, but as a civilised socitety we would have it no other way.

[TapselteerieO]

I can't see the royals or any particularly rich people being forced to sell anything to fund their care. I don't know what the answer is, but fair taxation would be a good start and stop spending money on wars most people in this country don't want to be involved in.

I think people with lots of money tie it all up in trusts to avoid inheritance tax and the issue of selling the family home. My Dad gave up his job to look after my Gran but he is really struggling, he lives with her in the house she scrimped and saved to buy (she worked two jobs well past the age of retirement) - but now her dementia is so bad he might be made homeless, because her house will be sold to pay for her care. It isn't worth a lot of money, but it is a worry. I do genuinely think if you can afford to contribute you should, my Dad is past the age of retirement now, has always worked but never had enough to own his own home.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Yes, catchingmockingbirds, the quality of homes is very different and that's what all the spend-your-money-and-rely-on-the-state brigade aren't considering.

[foxy6]

or can't pay their way for what ever reason
just a quick add on to My other post

[CloudsAndTrees]

does the quality of care increase if you paid for care through a house sale rather than a place being funded through tax money

It varies according to needs and areas. It is quite common to find self funding people and state funded people in exactly the same home, with exactly the same rooms, and receiving exactly the same care.

It has to be remembered that some people's owned homes aren't worth enough to pay for years and years of care anyway, so while they have lost their asset, they are still at some point going to have to be state funded and they won't get any more for their money than someone who has had to contribute nothing.

[Mosman]

People need to engage the services of lawyers and accountants to minimise their tax liabilities otherwise they will spend their lives being unfairly taxed, play the rich at their own game.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

(Obviously I'm not naive enough to think that greater cost will guarantee greater quality of care, but you can pretty much guarantee that the state's minimum provision isn't going to be the best in town.)

[KRITIQ]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I I personally don't believe anyone has a right to an inheritance when a parent dies. A person's assets should be used to ensure they have the best quality of life while alive. If there's spare cash left when they die, this should really just be seen as a windfall, not an entitlement.

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

Isn't there a proposal - or is it in force? - that whatever home you start in, the state will actually fund you, even if it is expensive, when/if your savings do run out?

[CooEeeEldridge]

Totally with you chipping, it's SHOCKING that people can be cautious, sensible, count every penny their whole life but will be forced to sell their asset that they do wish to pass on to their children (there's nothing wrong with this!!!!) to receive the same level of care as someone who has lived off the state their whole life. I struggle to see the point in buying a house now, subject really makes me mad!!!

Bride why should your gran ave to pay 500k for her care, but person in room next door has to pay f all?! It's not about the inheritance.

[amck5700]

I think the issue is that the woman in the next bed could have sat on her arse all her life on benefits and will get exactly the same care for feck all.

[CloudsAndTrees]

I agree it's not about inheritance.

To those who don't see why children should expect an inheritance, do you think it's any different if the elderly person in question chooses to spend all their money on holidays and designer handbags?

The money should go where the person who owns it wants it to go. If they want to give their own money to their children, that is their right. If they want to spend it all during their lifetime, that is their right too, but I don't see why one choice entitles you to free care when the other choice doesn't.

[hatgirl]

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 if the person lacks the mental capacity to make the decision about moving the council would have to show that any move was in their best interests e.g. for more appropriate care and not just based on cost.

If the person has mental capacity, and had moved to that home in the knowledge that they may have to move once their money ran out and that time has come they would then be in the position of asking family members to pay the 'top up' on top of whatever the council are willing to pay for them to remain in that home or move somewhere they can afford using state money.

[LauriesFairyonthetreeeatsCake]

I can totally buy the argument that its discrimination against the elderly.

We do, the elderly cost us more than all other benefits.

The answer is that we need to pay MUCH more tax and stop people accumulating great wealth so that they can then pass on assets in inheritance.

And no one wants to do that. So we don't.

People instead want to pay as little tax as possible and then bitch about 'paying again' when they're not.

The simple fact is we cost plenty to the state purse as a child and then much more when we're elderly and we don't earn enough or pay enough tax to hoard it, enjoy it and spend while working.

Pay more tax during working life or pay it when selling your assets when older.

It's simple economics.

[Mosman]

The truth is the person in the next bed will be of a generation where it's pretty unlikely they were living it up on holidays etc.
However going forward for our generation the difference between owning your own home or not is a 2-5 year period of 1998-2003 when you may well have been at university and paying for it yourself or just starting your career.
Given that our kids will have student loans, an almost impossible task trying to have a secure home rented or owned, I actually think they damned well ought to have their parents assets as inheritance as the Cameron's children will without a doubt.