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?

If we all agree on two basic things -

1. That no elderly person should be denied a place in a care home because they can't afford it, and;

2. That we can't afford to fully fund care for every elderly person that needs it;

....then we're left looking at some form of means-testing, aren't we? Not really any way around it.

I know it's a bit of a cliche - but it really is true that death and taxes are the only 2 certainties in life. As you get older, they sometimes seem like they are both headed towards you at an alarming rate.

Many of us go through life with our eyes shut and fingers in our ears somehow convincing ourselves that 'we'll be alright' when we get older. Although there could be some people who work and save all their money then either put it in trust or indulge themselves so that they can enjoy the money rather than spend it on nursing care, I think that they are very rare. Most people would probably make the choice to buy the best quality care that they can, if they have the money, then rely on the state if/when their money runs out.

I do think that heavy taxation on inheritance is a good thing - why should I just be given a lump sum of money from my parents when they die? They have lived in their house since I was 2, but I think it's ridiculous that they still live there when they don't need such a big house & a family with kids could be enjoying it. I know that some people get upset about the idea of moving elderly people out of a house, but it is just bricks & spit. I think that people are quite keen to hang on to their material possessions when off-loading them could actually give them a load more choices and resolve some issues.

For the 5% at the 'top' - well, I don't think that any major stately homes should be split up into flats or knocked down for a car park, but if they don't have enough cash to pay the 40% inheritance tax, then maybe they shouldn't be entrusted with that much property anyway.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch - that is great as long as the family can afford to make up the difference of around £300 per week.

One poster said that her sister cared for her parents for 15 years before care homes ate her inheritance (which I have every respect for). Assuming the parents weren't suffering from dementia at the point they moved in this was partly the parents fault - when they became dependent on their daughter they should have handed over all their cash. As they were with her over 7 years she would have kept it. Even if they were with her less than 7 years they should have paid her a decent amount each year as their carer.

Did anyone see that program where celebs stayed in care homes? The one that was expensive was lovely, like a holiday. Everything was done to encourage you to have a decent quality of life (e.g. supported trips to the pub!) The state funded one was awful, I would hate to pass my final years there. You sat there whilst you waited to die. Money buys you choice and comfort.

These debates are designed to set groups in society against each other and to portray older people as a burden. Do you object to paying for healthcare or social care for children or younger people with disabilities? These debates take attention away from what government does spend on and seeks to divide us by focusing on certain groups. Only a very small proportion of older people move to care homes, the rest are net contributors to the economy and vital sources of care and support as well as financial support to children and grandchildren. Yabu, but it is understandable if you rely on the media for your opinions.

The sticking point for me is that it costs the perso with assets £7-800 pw but the state pay £400 why is that fair? Surely both paying the same is less discriminatory? If the person with assets the decides to go to a more expensive one then fair doos but if both getting the same level of care for half/double the cost of each other I don't think that's particularly fair. That is penalising you for having an asset.

YY 3little - had the family not been able to do that (this was after DGMIL had been in residential homes a number of years) then she would have had to have moved care home unless she qualified for a charitable top up (homes were some kind of charity foundation I think).

PoohBears it sounds a bit like the 15 hours free nursery - my private day care offers it but they are not allowed by law to charge a top up on it - however, anyone not eligible for whatever reason would pay, say £5.50 per hour not £3.50 that the government support adds up to (I think - it's been a couple of years since I heard the figure)

And another point often overlooked is that 'wealthy' pensioners were usually higher earners and therefore higher contributors to the welfare state throughout their lives. They've paid in more but any 'benefit' they then need is grudged them.

I think it's wrong to just keep sticking people in homes. What happened to looking after your family. A better idea would be to sell the home in question and use that cash for a family member to buy a house with a granny annex. IMO anyway.

What stinks is those plotting on how to gt hands on cash once they've stuffed mum in a care home. Mind you, I'm screwed I have only boys!

It was my sister who looked after parents. 1 had dementia the other didn't. Parents paid for some social services provided care - a bath attendant once a day. SS told my sister that if they had paid her anything that would have been considered disposition of assets, and was not allowed.

I have come to realise that it is a minefield trying to find out what you are entitled to, and when you are already sressed and exhausted it is extremely difficult to get any help.

It just seems unfair, it's like someone buying a kitkat for £.50 in a govt shop and then th nexteron comin in with a deigne hand bag and beng charge £1, it's exactly the same product from exactly the same place. Ho hum.

And something happened to my keyboard obviously!

girloutnumbered - good luck with that when you have 2 sets of elderly parents with dementia, incontinence, lots of medical conditions, endless hospital appointments, AND you have to work full time to pay your mortgage and support your children. It can go on for years and years.

Selfish or not if this is the case when I get older i will be enjoying some nice holidays while I can. I would rather leave my son some money as I think his generation will struggle to get onto the housing market. If going without a few holidays I can help, I will.

That would be difficult 3littlefrogs. I guess I only see my situation.

I can see both sides of this and am literally 'living' it at the moment. My mum is in a care home (dementia) but prior to this I and my dd lived with her, with me as her primary carer. When I was unable to do this anymore she went into a home. Her house is to be sold to pay for her care, it doesn't matter that I gave up nearly 10 years of my life to care for her, that my earning potential suffered etc, I am not a dependant and therefore her house is an asset. The payment has been deferred though so I can stay here until her death (when I then have something like 15 days to pay the bil - hmmmm).

I have chosen to move out, and will rent.

After the initial fury for all the above reasons people have given - she worked hard all her life, etc etc I now think that it is right that the house is sold.

Mum receives excellent (albeit ludicrously expensive - £28k a year!) care and we as a society are becoming more and more expectant that the country will foot the bill. She can afford to pay for her care and should. The fact that she is relatively young, in good physical health and her house is not by any means a mansion, means that the government will indeed have to 'foot the bill' in about 5 years time anyway as there will be no money left.

My mother has Alzheimer's, she's had it for several years. My father died years ago and there is no-one else but my sister and I. We cared for her as long as we could but I don't live close by and the burden fell on my sister who has two children and she's also trying to work. We never wanted my mother in a home but eventually Alzheimer's gets so bad my mother was a danger - falling down stairs, not eating correctly, leaving the cooker on, doubly incontinent...sometimes she would go to the toilet in saucepans and leave them all over the kitchen floor. She didn't sleep much either and so even a full-time carer had their hands full 24 hours a day. It became impossible. We did find a wonderful, caring and very loving and gentle nursing home where my mother is now. She is so much better, happier, settled. She no longer knows us but enjoys visits anyway.

We had no choice but to sell the family home. My sister and I have no big assests and to get the loving care we wanted for my mother costs us nearly £3700 per month privately and the local authority only refunds £400 of that. All the money was tied up in the family home which was big, with land, and no mortgage. I think it's only right that we should have to pay because we have the means to do so, free care should be for those with nothing at all. It also means that my sister and I will inherit nothing, but our view is that the house wasn't "ours" anyway, it was my parents' house and if they worked hard to buy it then it is only right it should fund my mother's last days and make her as comfortable as possible.

We haven't told my mother simply becuase she doesn't understand anything much these days and would find it too complicated to grasp. We would have done things differently if she was suffering from an illness which was curable and therefore needed her home to go back to, but in this case it wasn't so.

There is also an issue of different costs across local authorities. When my aunt needed nursing care we moved her to a home near us which is right on the border of 2 authorities. If we registered her with a GP in one area the nursing home was free of charge, if registered with a GP in the other area there was an £80 per week top-up fee.

I cannot see a solution to this, it is just another example of life is not fair, there will always be winners and losers.

And whoever said (and I'm paraphrasing here) 'whatever happened to looking after your parents'

OMG! My DM has severe mobility issues, which is why I moved home to be with her in the first place. Her dementia came on very very suddenly. Have you ANY idea how hard it is to look after someone who has dementia. I worked (p/t) and had a 3 year old dd at the time. I was up at 6.30 every morning to wake her up before the carers came (she refused to get up for them). I then had to deal with dd and get her ready for nursery. After nursery I would get home and see what gems the carers had written that day in her care diary (Things like 'Not given lunch today as she has been to London with her mother', 'not got her dressed today as there were not any clothes in the piano stool in her room' - no they'd be in the fucking wardrobe!).

I would then have to quickly scan the room for soiled sanitary pads, poo smears on the walls, unlock the kitchen (as she used to put the hobs on and throw things at it). This is on top of the fact that her bed was now in the one downstairs living room and she was using a comode - these STINK btw (all of the equipment as an aside is not given by the NHS, but by the Red Cross - this REALLY suprised me when she first got ill).

I'd calm my dd down as I explained that grandma didnt know that her toys weren't rubbish, and that's why they were in the bin (often covered with aforementioned soiled towels). Then it would be bedtime for dd, with the wails of dm as she would hallucinate small children around the house.

She would point blank refuse to go to bed. I had pressure alarms at all the exits to the house to stop her running away in the evening. I would be up probably every half an hour during the night to help her with something. I had to have the gas fire disconnected as she kept turning the gas on and not igniting it - my life was hell to the point where I would have happily stepped in front of a bus just to put myself out of action for a few months. And then there's the relentless guilt, the fury you feel that the person you love and cherish isnt that person anymore. The guilt you feel that you can't do it and that some people think you are shoving them in a home for an easy life and to get the inheritance!

But hey, just look after your relatives at home and stop being so selfish, that would solve all the problems

Yes in the 'olden days' family would care for the old and infirm in their family.

But then yes there wasn't such a need to be out earning to pay the ever important mortgage and lots of families had one adult in the home and one working full time.

Seems a bit pointless working so hard to maintain a mortgage when under this rule if you need care in your old age, it basically is no better than renting.

I don't think people buy a house so they have something to leave their children, I think they buy a house because they want a secure home for them and their children in their lifetime.

Society has changed lots though. for most people it isnt possible to afford a mortgage on one wage, so both adults work and no one is available to look after old parents.

It's all a bit skewed really.

I think you can apply this theory to all of life.Why work when you can get everything for free. It is sad that there will always be people that feel this way.

If we could only support people that were genuinely unable to support themselves we would be much richer.

Giving benefits to those that don't need them may be fair but it is hardly workable.

For this suggesting that families should look after their parents...you try looking after someone who has very severe dementia for one day and then harp on about families looking after the old and infirm. It is neither physically nor psychologically possible in some cases for the family members or the actual sufferer themselves. But don't let that get in the way of your judging.

Was that for me Lilith? you said 'old and infirm' which I used in my post.

I said I would do it as long as is medically possible for my parents. I know that dementia is no walk in the park and requires professional care.

I have also been a carer for an elderly family member until she died and am carer for my own disabled child, so I do have some insight into the relentless task of caring.