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?

Yeah, hatgirl, I've just been reading the AgeUk thing on funding;

"If the home in which you have been self-funding costs more than the local authority is usually prepared to pay for that type of care this may cause difficulties if you have to apply for local authority assistance later on.

The local authority may require a third party to make up the difference and, if none is available, suggest that you move to a cheaper home.

If either of the above is suggested, ask the local authority to carry out an assessment of your all your needs [...] They should also look at the risk of moving you.
If your existing care home is found to be the only one that can meet your assessed needs, then the full cost should be met by the local authority."

Legally, it would hinge on arguing your 'existing needs' I guess.

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

Do you not see any areas inbetween?

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

It's simple economics.

I could agree with this if it applied to everyone who was healthy enough to work though out the majority of their working age years. But it won't apply to everyone, and that is why the system is likely to always be unfair.

Fair or not, the facts get in the way of every argument here:

1. No one, but no one, has paid enough tax to fund 1k a week care for the rest of their lives. Most people die within a year of going into care, but increasingly stays of 10-15 years are common. That's one million pounds for one person's end of life care.

1. The UK is now becoming a nation of renters - renters pay out much more than anyone with a mortgage, and are left with nothing. Except the prospect of being booted out within the month, for private tenants, which most of them are.

I get a bit sick of people whining about losing their homes when huge, and rapidly increasing, swathes of the population never had a chance of one anyway.

The renters are of course buying the property their landlord's children stand to inherit.

And those children will froth and growl to the Daily Mail when anyone suggests that their parents' estate ought to go someway towards paying for their care in old age...

I feel a revolution coming on

I realise that some people are unlikely to have the chance of owning their own property, but I don't see how the fact that they have been unable to own means that they are more deserving of free care.

People who own properties pay a lot too. Mortgages don't get given out for free, and maintaining a property is very expensive. Lots of people struggle financially in life, including homeowners. I don't agree that renters pay out much more every month. Some do, some don't. Renters and owners do not fall in to two separate well defined categories with no crossover at all.

Sometimes people choose to rent, and sometimes that choice enables them to have more luxury and choice than a homeowner who is stuck needing a new heating system in a property that's in negative equity. Sometimes people rent yet still have plenty of money in other assets or in the bank.

This isn't about homeowners versus renters, it's about being fair to everyone in society.

...hopefully this time round the Government WILL DO something like put a cap on the amount someone can pay for Nursing Care - this cap in turn could stimulate an area of the Insurance market which has not really been exploited to date.

Personally I would be happy to know that I could leave "something" to my children if I had savings above this amount and subsequently needed Nursing Care.

I would also be happy to take out an insurance policy against going into a Nursing Home to protect my savings ... I think that we need to know the maximum amount that we would need for our later years should we need Care - it is the great unknown as far as Nursing costs are concerned.

My Mother has spent over £310,000+ on Nursing Care - and is now funded by the SS as her savings/home sale funds are gone... That money represented a life of sacrifice for her and it would have broken her heart to know that she cannot leave anything to her children. Thankfully (???) she does not know as she is bed-bound, semi-comatose, unable to see, hear etc - in fact all she does is breathe.

Ew.

I realise that some people are unlikely to have the chance of owning their own property, but I don't see how the fact that they have been unable to own means that they are more deserving of free care

It isnt about being 'deserving' of free care!

It just means they don't have the means to pay.

I think this is what some people struggle with, they think that because they have owned property that means they deserve something 'back'

'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 partied his whole life, now they both need homes. The 'sensible' one is now punished for being sensible. Not really that fair is it?'

Why is it always assumed that if you do not have your own home that you were a profligate loser who never worked?

Some people will have paid as much in tax as it costs to keep them in old age care. Otherwise the system would not work.

I read this a lot on MN 'you have not paid enough on tax to cover your c-section / old age care / cancer treatment'

Where has these meme come from?

I disagree with paying for someone's care to protect their childrens' inheritance.

This meme, not these meme

Look that is so sad to hear about your mother.

I view my earning years as basically a race to earn as much as possible to support me when or if I get to retirement. I put as much into a pension as I can manage and big financial decisions are based on whether I need to be building up savings or not.

I fully intend to downsize when older as I don't want to end my days worrying about upkeep etc. I also want to take out an insurance plan that will cover health care when I'm older, although it will be expensive and I may never benefit from it. I know that I am fortunate to have those choices and I am also very eager to see a proportion of my taxes going towards people who have had less choice and need more support.

Sadly, all these decisions rest on the assumption that I will remain fit enough to work until my 70s, which is quite a big gamble to take as it may not happen.

And that's the main point - a significant number of us don't stay fit and healthy enough to work for enough years and contribute in taxes. Therefore the savings do need to be used for this. I do think that if there's a major asset like a house that it should pay towards supporting a person if they no longer need it, rather than trying to keep it for inheritance.

You might have misunderstood me through my bad choice of words there Amber, I certainly don't think that being a homeowner makes someone more deserving.

I shouldn't have used the word deserving really, because everyone is deserving of care when they need it.

And if everyone is deserving of it, everyone should get it, regardless of their bank balance. It just seems very very wrong that in a country where we pay into a system that is supposed to be there for people when we need it that we then pick and choose what treatments are free and which have to be paid for.

Comparing illnesses is much more of a valid comparison than comparing wealth, or property ownership.

And the fact is that the system as it is at the moment sees some illnesses as worthy of free treatment and others unworthy. I just think that's wrong. If someone needs help then they need help, the system should work the same way for everyone.

I disagree with paying for someone's care to protect their childrens' inheritance.

Do you also disagree with paying for someone's care because they have spent all their money on expensive holidays?

'Do you also disagree with paying for someone's care because they have spent all their money on expensive holidays?'

Eh? So everyone who doesn't have a house to sell to pay for care has been blowing it on expensive holidays?

Is old age an illness?

cloudsandtrees

I see what you are saying now, but then you say this;

Do you also disagree with paying for someone's care because they have spent all their money on expensive holidays

So I think I was right first time.

You think its about non home owners being feckless and yes undeserving.

'My Mother has spent over £310,000+ on Nursing Care - and is now funded by the SS as her savings/home sale funds are gone... That money represented a life of sacrifice for her and it would have broken her heart to know that she cannot leave anything to her children. Thankfully (???) she does not know as she is bed-bound, semi-comatose, unable to see, hear etc - in fact all she does is breathe.'

I don't understand this mentality, but I come from a country where people presume that their own personal wealth is to pay for the best standard of care they can purchase, not to leave behind and expect the government to pay for entirely unless you are needy - no quibbling about, 'Well, people who don't have the assets I have are getting something I'm not'.

My parents are comfortably retired. We are lucky to have their assets to use and house to sell to pay for them, not leave to us. We did nothing to earn that money, why on Earth feel entitled to it? It's for them, as much as possible, to keep them as comfortable as we can.

They do not feel 'broken-hearted', but glad there are assets to help us help them if need be.

*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*

I think Laurie sums it up perfectly.

The dementia which saw my Grandmother needing to go into a nursing home was certainly an illness.

Those taxpayers who are now paying for the care of the elderly will NOT have their own care paid for due to demographics: there will be too many of us. I agree with someone earlier that nobody has paid in enough tax to pay for years of expensive nursing care: the govt can only afford it for some because we currently have a relatively large working population (so several of us can support each old person). I agree with the OP - I don't expect the taxpayer to pay for my father's nursing home when his house could be sold to pay for it. Effectively it is ME as the beneficiary of the will that the taxpayer would be subsidising otherwise. Why should they? Why should my father, having worked hard all his life to pay for his house, not then spend that on himself when he needs it? These are harsh realities but free nursing care for all is not sustainable for the economy (sadly).

What a load of rubbish! I didn't say that at all, please don't twist my words and make such massive leaps from what I said into something I didn't even think.

It's not about homeowners being undeserving at all. Why in the world would I think that non homeowners are feckless and undeserving

I am genuinely baffled by that assumption.

I asked that question because people have a right to spend their own money on whatever they want. We aren't obliged by law to save for possible care if we get dementia or whatever, we aren't even forced to save for a pension. People make different choices with their money, as they are allowed to do. Some will save, some won't. Some will have enough to save, some won't. I don't think judgements should be made between those people. If they need care then they need care, it's that simple.

My mum lives in a council house.... she was abandoned by a feckless husband, worked at 3 part time jobs til she was 68 and could no longer cope with the physical work...

at some point she will go into a state funded care facility because she lives 700 miles away from me and does not want to move closer away from all her friends - we live where the work is.... so I cannot provide day to day care... she has no house, she has no savings, she has worked her fingers to the bone...

we can pay a bit towards her care but there is no way on this planet we could pay £700 a week (her local care home fee level) that is more than our combined salary for a start...

these threads make me feel completely p**sed off - she hasn't lazed around, she hasn't wasted a single penny on herself her whole life, and yet people would begrudge her free care...