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?

40% inheritance tax on money that has already been taxed is scandalous

Without inheritance tax the divide between rich and poor, which is at the root of so many social issues, would be far worse than it already is. The "already taxed" argument is illogical. Money gets taxed repeatedly as it moves around the economy - e.g. Your employer generates revenue that it's customers have paid tax on, they use some of that revenue to pay your salary which you pay tax on, you spend it on goods/services and pay VAT, the companies you buy goods and services from pay tax on the profits and use some of what's left to pay their employees (return to beginning of sentence, rinse and repeat).

It is a difficult one. My mum had virtually no savings and lived frugally but she still had to pay for council run homecare at £11.00 per hour. This was discounted as she had no income apart from pension and dla equivalent. I guess if she hadn't died prematurely she would have had a home funded.

I genuinely can't understand the argument of people who think it's unfair that their parents have to sell their house to look after themselves.

Just because someone is above retirement age, doesn't mean they get to give up all responsibility for themselves and be funded by the state, all the while keeping their investments, including their home, fully intact.

The introduction of the NHS and state pension are wonderful but they seem to have encouraged some sort of instance entitlement in some people.

Just because someone is above retirement age, doesn't mean they get to give up all responsibility for themselves and be funded by the state, all the while keeping their investments, including their home, fully intact

well, if you get cancer or any other life limiting disease or even an accident in your 30s or 40s no one will expect you to pay for your long term care.
IHT is being increased to £1m, Corporation tax is being slashed..... the wealthy gain, meanwhile....even less tax take for the things that matter, its a societal decision to make people give up all they ve worked for to pay for care the feckless get for nothing or the wealthy avoid all together.

I have made sure that whatever happens, my daughter gets the bulk of my estate, hopefully she ll have a long wait!!!

lulu12345 I think it is because, up until now, people who have chosen not to save or make any provision for themselves are given free care, which those who have been responsible must pay for. This rewards irresponsible behaviours and appears unfair.

However in the future who knows what provision there will be for those who don't save, so I wouldn't care to chance it.

Long term elderly care has to be taken in by the state and i see a return to geriatric hospitals and homes, with only the very wealthy going into private care.
As UK and Europe's population ages, the days when Europeans came here to look after our elderly will be long gone.

The fact is that unless your children inherit wealth, their chances of owning a home is limited, paying out rent for a life time, will then mean as they retire, they ll be dependent on the state for housing too, so even less possibility to save for long term care.

@jasjas1973 well, if you get cancer or any other life limiting disease or even an accident in your 30s or 40s no one will expect you to pay for your long term care.

But how does that compare? You need to draw the line somewhere as to what taxpayers should fund.. the government have decided that most healthcare should be free, but most elderly social care should not. Personally I'm quite happy with this as the alternative would be that me - fit and healthy 36 year old taxpayer - would need to pay a lot more income tax so that an older generation can receive free care and keep all their investments, including their home, fully intact to pass onto their children.

I'd rather save into my own pension and investments so that I can provide for myself when I'm elderly.

@Tawdrylocalbrouhaha I agree, and to some extent I don't blame people for now feeling like they're "losing out" compared to previous generations, who received more generous pensions and social care funding.

This is a major issue for us as a nation and I wish the government would be brave enough to confront it head on. In the meantime I won't be taking any chances and am putting away money to ensure I can cover my own (and perhaps my parents) elderly care.

I’d rather it be a more personal responsibility

I can see that it must be galling to fund it out of assets and receiving exactly the same care / situation but it could be similar to private v NHS: basic and good v extras, good and choice

Both my parents worked from the age of 14 but both passed away from cancer just before they were due to receive a state pension. By your thinking OP I should be asking for a refund for all the NI and tax they paid too!

I had both my parents live with me in order to keep the family home and those last few years/months were some of the most special we spent together.

No way I could have put them in care and have to pay extortionate fees for the "privilege"

Long term elderly care has to be taken in by the state and i see a return to geriatric hospitals and homes, with only the very wealthy going into private care.

Who the heck is going to pay for this?? Income tax rates would need to skyrocket to enable fully state funded care.

More likely is that we all need to get used to having to save more for our retirement from as early an age as possible. Mandatory pension contributions is a step towards this but most of us don't have a clue. I'm very financially literate and have always worked in investments and I didn't even realise until I was late-20s that I needed to start making a massive (for me) pension contribution each month to generate the type of income I would want as a pensioner. I only did this because my now husband pestered me to start making pension contributions. We don't tend to talk about money with friends (or even relatives) so many of us end up not realising until it's too late that we should have been saving a lot since we started working.

OP, you could move your mum in with you and look after her yourself. Then you won't have to worry about the State forcing a sale on you. Or you can sell her home and use it to pay for the State to care for her. Your choice.

My grandmother sold her house and moved in with us all when I was 2ish. She lived with us for some 25 years, with my mum caring for her (while working ft as well as caring for 3 children - and a load of other people too).

My mother sold her home and moved in with us, in her turn, and lived with us until she died.

You could do that but you'd rather someone else looked after your mum for free.

I'm very upset by lots of these replies, I'm not money grabbing wanting the fruits of my mother's hard work.

@Jkoakham I'm very upset by lots of these replies, I'm not money grabbing wanting the fruits of my mother's hard work.

You might not realise it OP but you are money grabbing if you're wanting your mum to give her money to you and not use it to pay for her living expenses

I'm very upset by lots of these replies, I'm not money grabbing wanting the fruits of my mother's hard work.

Read your statement again OP.

You have just said you want the fruits of your mothers hard work. Sorry but the fruits of her hard work belong to her. To pay for her housing and needs right now. It absolutely is money grabbing to even consider yourself deserving of this money.

Surprise surprise the op still doesn't get it. Unless of course the thread has gone a bit quiet and they want to fan ye olde flames a bit more.

there are other 400,000 people living in care homes, with an average cost of £30k per annum (more if nursing care is needed) so a total of £12 billion, that would cost about an extra 2p on the basic rate of income tax. I can't see any political party campaigning to increase taxes so that wealthy care home residents can pass it all on to their children when they die.

@jasjas1973

I and several other posters corrected you yesterday about the fact that ANYONE over the age of 18 has to pay for their care if they have social care needs regardless of what their diagnosis is.

Please stop perpetuating the myth that only old people have to pay for their care. Everyone's does, even people with cancer in their 40s if that means they have long term social care needs.

Per the ONS website, 18% of the UK population is above 65, that's about 12 million people..

Assuming a cost of £30k care per annum for each person, that would be an annual cost of £360 billion.

Just to give a sense of scale, total collections from income tax and national insurance is about £400 billion a year. The NHS costs us about £120 billion a year.

Income tax rates would need to go through the roof to provide free elderly care to everyone.

No the fruits of her hard work belong to who she wants to give them to. Not to be forced to be asset stripped by private companies and the state.

She's worked alot harder than say prince Charles or Camilla ever have, but won't have anything much (24k) to pass on at this rate and I bet Charles will get to pass on millions

No the fruits of her hard work belong to who she wants to give them to. Not to be forced to be asset stripped by private companies and the state.

What bit are you not getting OP? Just cos your mums old doesn't mean she shouldn't need to pay her own living expenses? At what age do you think the state should start looking after us??

I think something worth remembering is that many ordinary working people were encouraged under Thatcher to buy a home, and as a result incurred much greater expense and often hardship. They saw friends who rented going on holidays and buying nice furniture. It's nice having your own home, but for many people not a realisable asset, as you need somewhere to live.

I do think there is something unfair in these people paying for all their care, whilst the renting neighbour doesn't have to.

And it would have been fairer if this had been clearer at the time they chose to buy.

I'm getting it perfectly, she was promised cradle to grave healthcare as long as she always paid her stamp.

She did and now is being told to pay more for what she already paid for. What are you not getting?

I'm not getting who you think should pay for your mums care.. You want to take her investments (house) off her for yourself but you think taxpayers should foot the bill for her care. If everyone took this selfish attitude income tax rates would need to almost double.

She's already paid for it with her stamp is the point.