Heartbroken that I'm being forced to sell mum's house, she worked hard for it and paid her national insurance

[Jkoakham]

And now her savings are running out I will need to sell her house to carry on funding it.

It all seems to very unfair, her house was supposed to be passed to me but instead it's affectively passed to government and private companies.

I thought the dimentia tax had been can cancelled?

My husband and I have always said we will adapt our home so his parents can live with us for as long as possible before needing to go into care.
Originally our plans we're based on my two children moving out to convert their rooms into a self contained annex but reading this has made me realise we need to up our plans.
This isn't about making sure we have an inheritance, but making sure they stay with people they love for as long as possible and when the time comes we have the money to give us as many options as possible.
OP I am sorry for so many of the comments on here. I don't think you are entitled or money grabbing simply upset as most people would be that the thing your parents have worked so long for is being sold to fund care in later life when so many others don't pay. I sincerely hope that selling the house allows you to choose the best care home for your Mum

Those who agree elderly care should be fully funded. Where will it come from? It's the same as people complaining about their dc's school having old books etc.

People don't want to pay more tax. Any government that hiked income tax to cover a fully funded scheme would be out on their arse after one term.

Wow, what a sense of entitlement. So people like me, in my 40s, who will never see a penny of so-called state pension because it won't exist in a few years, should work and pay taxes so you can inherit a house? Fuck that. When my folks died I inherited FA. I'd moved across the world at a young age. My sister did all their caring. They willed her the lot. You know what? I'm so grateful I had them for parents. They were amazing people. I had no entitlement whatsoever to money or property I did nothing to earn. I love my sister and I'm so happy she has a mortgage free house because now she is chronically ill in her 50s and can't work as many hours.

But had we needed to sell their house to fund their care we'd have done it without a second thought. We don't believe that other taxpayers should fund people's inheritances.

The idea that people who don't pay get good quality care is laughable. As it is, poor people have a lower life expectancy.

I would far rather taxes are increased to bring in social care funding that see the current situation which is a bit of a lottery. Ie person x with a £600k house dies suddenly of a heart attack. All of his assets go to his children. Person y with a house worth £200k and needs residential care. Savings are depleted and a charge goes on the house to pay for care. Person Y’s children see very little of the estate. Healthcare risk is looked across the population so the healthy effectively subsidise the sick. This is not really the case for social care which is desperately underfunded with the individual bearing more risk.

@user1471426142 that's a bit ridiculous and seen only from the point of view of the potential inheritors. The person that does at 60 doesn't cost us, or their family anything in retirement care but they also unfortunately die early so have hardly "won" some sort of lottery

LeftRightCentre I think it depends on where you are, the local authority I work for has a number of excellent care homes which charge the LA care rate, and the more expensive homes tend to be worse care, though the surroundings are a little nicer. People tend to confuse a care home that looks good with one providing good care. I've often found the opposite to be true

I can't afford to pay higher taxes to protect people's inheritances. Life is a lottery. It's not fair. Some people live ages with no health problems, others die young. Some get lucky in other ways. Legislating for this is a fool's game and I'm not interested in having less money to live on to fund such a thing. It's a poisoned chalice to live longer for many as they develop dementia, yet you see wellness as the new religion, with subsequent shame attached to various forms of eating or drinking or legal adult behaviours.

Lulu12345- I did only mean that from a financial point of view in that you don’t know if you’re likely to have to pay for care. In healthcare that financial risk is mitigated through insurance systems and tax based systems but in social care it isn’t. I.e it is pretty random and unfair that some people have to pay costs of hundreds of thousands and others nothing. It might be fairer that everyone pays some rather than some people pay huge sums and others nothing.

Clearly an early death is unlikely to be a blessing but argument was purely a financial one.

What I'd like to see is abolishing non-payment of NI when a person reaches state retirement age. Older people who can work and draw pensions do not AFAIK pay anymore NI contributions. They are however allowed to earn free of this contribution. This I feel is certainly unsustainable. It would help a bit. IMHO. But hey, what do I know?

Then move your elderly parents into your home, or if that is not possible sell their home and buy a new one with room for an annexe.

The issue is where people have been shouting so loudly for the religious state that is the NHS to be better funded adult social care has seen massive cuts go it's way. There is more to adult social care than old people sitting on huge sums of money refusing to pay their care bills, it covers the age bracket of 18-65 as well.

All these posts from mum's on here scared for their children leaving children's services and heading to adults for their support. They're the ones you're hurting by keeping your inheritence. The partners and children of people who are hit by MS or MND, they are the ones your hurt by wanting to dodge your care bills. The young man knocked off his bike who broke his back or suffered a severe brain injury, he suffers for you to keep your inheritance.

Think before you speak. Think before you act. Think before you vote.

Other way to look at it is your mum doesn't live there anymore- she moved out 16 months ago, how long were you planning on leaving it empty? 5 years? 10 years? Some people spend 20 years in care homes, at what point do you stop viewing it as your mum's home and start viewing it as the place she used to live in?

If it wasn't dementia, if she just couldn't cope with stairs, would you think that because she needs flat, should she get that for free so she didn't need to sell her house?

It did used to be that dementia was treated as cancer, but then old people started living too long.

Can the house be rented out? I know people who need go move for other reasons who don't want to sell end up renting out their old home.

Life isn't fair. I will actively vote against higher taxes to fund htis because I can't afford to foot the bill for other people's inheritances.

I honestly believe that the only chance my children have at getting on the property ladder is when my parents die and the sale of the house (hopefully won’t happen for many years to come) however, if they need to sell the house in order to pay for decent care for them in their old age, that is what they will do (encouraged by me). Yes they e worked their whole lives for that house but it is their house to do with what they want, not mine, not my children’s.

Op it must be very distressing for you to see your mum so upset and ill but hopefully when you are in a better frame of mind you will see how totally unreasonable you are being. How else do you expect your mothers care to be paid for?

The unfairness of it though, is that somebody can work hard, scrimp and save for a home, do without luxuries and make sacrifices to afford a house.

But when they die all that can be taken away by care fees.

By contrast somebody who lived in a rental and spent all their money on fags, booze, holidays and clothes and had patchy or non-existent work histories would get the same care for free.

The people who had worked and been responsible and saved and paid into the system and their families would end up in exactly the same boat at the end as people who’d pissed all their money up the wall.

She's not losing her home, it's an investment that needs to be sold to fund her care.

I know it’s not about getting your mums money; if she had a choice she wouldn’t have dementia and her original wish of passing the house on to you could be honoured.

@@Leftrightcentre, on that logic are you against the NHS? As you pay into it and might not be someone who will ever need expensive medical care in your lifetime. However, you know at least you will never be made bankrupt if you are unfortunate to need expensive medical treatment. I mentioned Labour’s idea that possibly everyone pays a small percentage from their estate to fund a national social care You wouldn’t be funding it in your lifetime.

There will always be a small amount of people who pay in very little, but a national insurance scheme means people pool collective resources and no one is made bankrupt at least or very straitened financially by having the misfortune to get a chronic illness at the end of life that needs high level care beyond even what family can provide.

Truthfully, the number of people who never work and blow tens of thousands on fags and booze is very slim, and I'd reckon a fair few of those aren't going to live 20 years in a nursing home with dementia, the majority who live that type of life will die long before that. An increasing number of people rent because no matter what they sacrifice they will never be able to afford a property of any sort. And yet they work and pay taxes, too. It's not an insurance policy or a savings account you can expect to make withdrawals from. The reality is that more and more people are living longer and longer with complex health problems. So everyone should pay higher taxes so the privileged can inherit a house?

People are really just living too long, and in ever increasing numbers. I read somewhere that the Western world is likely to be bankrupted by medical costs of its ageing populations. 60-year-olds now are often going to be living to not just 100, but 110 and beyond. But the increased longevity will not be matched by vast improvements in health. There will be masses of elderly people with functioning bodies but degenerated brains.

The tax burden on the working population would be untenable.

I personally think a small percentage on one’s estate at death would be one of the better solutions. I recognise now with such high housing inflation in some parts of the UK less people will own houses, but some will do very well out of property and taxing a small percentage to go directly into a national social care fund would be my choice.

@scaryteacher I haven't seen that about the £30k payment on retirement. Where do they expect people to find that sort of money? There's no way I'll be downsizing as I live in a one bed maisonette!

One question, what happens if DH or I need care in the future? I presume we couldn't be made to sell our home while the other one is still living there?

I'm in a favour a tri-party system to provide healthcare, Pin. Person, employee, state. I'm not a Labour fan, either.

There is a lot of misinformation on this thread. The 7 year gap for inheritance tax does not also apply to care costs. The council can go back a long way and if they can show that the person in question intentionally deprived themselves of assets they can and will take that into account. You cannot ‘sign over’ your house to your child and continue to live in it for 10 years and expect at all that the council will say ‘ok then, we’ll pay’.