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?

London, that really is heartbreaking. 💐

NI is expected to raise £136bn this year.

When it was started it was intended to pay for illness and unemployment, and was eventually extended to pay for pensions.

Although at the outset it was hoped that in due course sufficient would be raised to pay for pensions at subsistence level, this was abandoned early on as being simply unaffordable. See here: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmsocsec/56/5605.htm.

So it isn't true to say that someone who has been paying their NI all their working life has paid for a certain level of state support in retirement, or care from cradle to the grave. Benefit spending in the UK (2013 figures) came to £159bn. Pensions came to £74bn.

No political party has ever come to power on a manifesto pledge of increasing taxes sufficient to bridge that gap and pay for what OP wants.

YANBU.

Gottagetmoving care to expand?

There is no entitlement to an inheritance. What you need you pay for. Until you cannot pay and the state provides.

she was promised cradle to grave healthcare as long as she always paid her stamp.

and she will continue to get that. Her GP and any other NHS care will be free. She was never promised cradle to grave social care.

No political party has ever come to power on a manifesto pledge of increasing taxes sufficient to bridge that gap and pay for what OP wants

It would cost £5,5 b illion in 2020/21 to fully fund social care, rising to 7 billion in 2030/31 ref Kings fund or about an 1/8th of HS2. or 1/20th of Trident.

Government has just announced £2.5billion to fund a feasibility study into a new jet fighter, the plane will cost over £50b and rising.

As i said earlier, its about priorities and choices, something many on here cannot or are unable to grasp.

As i said earlier, its about priorities and choices, something many on here cannot or are unable to grasp.

And you cannot seem to grasp just how dangerous a country with low defences is. The most valuable asset of any country is peace, in a place without this or with poor infrastructure or with instability everything falls apart, not just social care. Armed forces and infrastructure are vital because when you start to cut that too much you risk your entire country, not just the staggering cost of social care for an increasing amount of elder care that some expect everyone else to pay for so a select few can have an inheritance.

she was promised cradle to grave healthcare as long as she always paid her stamp.

And those of us in our 40s and 50s were promised a lot of shit, but now it's not affordable, that's just too bad. Anyone who believed they would get it all scot free so they can pass assets on was fooling themselves from the get go, and I see no reason why the likes of our generation should be forced to pay for promises past governments made so a select few can pass on inheritance. I have to 'pay my stamp', too, just like any other employee. But I'll see FA for it. It's just another tax. Life isn't fair. As it is, I'm very grateful to live in a place where I can turn on the tap and clean water comes out, I can get to and from work in peace. Those things cost, they have to be paid for or you live in a place where, well, those places really suck unless lyou're pretty rich.

OP, if you are still reading, the other thing you need to think about is how quickly you can realise the value of the house, in order to provide continuity of care, and also, brutally, how long that will fund care for compared with your mum's likely longevity.

As others have made clear, the care homes funded by public money are not necessarily the same standard as those that are wholly or partially self-funded, and so you do need to think carefully about the long term. The last thing you want is a forced move in a couple of years' time when the value of the house has been spent but your mum still needs residential care. How is her physical health?

For my own parents - around 80 years old, but both from very long-lived families, so we work on the assumption that they probably each have 15+ years to live - our working hypothesis is that, once one or both become unable to live independently and after we have done everything possible to support them in their own homes or in / near ours, first they spend their savings, then they spend the value of their house, then we [as in their children] top up whatever state assistance is available using our money. Not that we can be 'net gainers' from 'our inheritance'.

Our armed forces are already at rock bottom, we dont even have enough money to crew the new QE a/c.

the NHS, education, transport and roads are falling around our ears and you think we should design some new jets (the most expensive option)and renew Trident?

If you can come up with a scenario where the UK launches Nuclear weapons independant of the USA then lets hear it,

We could halt Corporation tax cuts and IHT rises and fund all social care to a higher std than we do now, regardless of who pays.

Care of the elderly in this country is a disgrace and should be put under state control instead of for profit companies.

The current system id fundamentally unfair, penalises the thrifty and the hard working and so far no one has explained why old age should be funded totally differently to other areas of health care.

@cantkeepawayforever yep I'm working on the same assumption that I'll be putting my hand in my pocket to find my parents care, certainly not that I'll be reciting an inheritance.

Hopefully this won't hit me till I'm finished with childcare costs as a double whammy of dependent children and dependent adults would really hurt me!

The current system is fundamentally unfair, penalises the thrifty and the hard working and so far no one has explained why old age should be funded totally differently to other areas of health care

Exactly. Ageism strikes again, once you're old you and what you've worked to achieve do not matter, and funding someone who's worked hard all their life is not and never will be a priority. It's the selling of false so-called reward, and dreams

so far no one has explained why old age should be funded totally differently to other areas of health care

In my opinion:

1. we can't afford it... I don't believe the £5bn figure you stated earlier, my fag packet working up thread got to c70x that, or around 3x what the nhs costs us per annum

2. old age isn't an illness! We're lucky we get free healthcare in this country but we need to draw a line somewhere. Everyone has plenty of notice that there likely to have to fund their own retirement and so they have a lifetime of earning to plan and save for it.

Lulu,

As my DC are mid-late teens, we will probably be funding their first flights into independence at the same time as we are funding my parents' descent into dependence....

People complaining it’s not fair, well life isn’t fair. The poorest in society may never experience the joy of owning their own home, have lower life expectancy and worse health throughout their life than the middle classes and yet the middle classes still say it’s unfair.

Mistress,

Can you explain why it is wrong, if any person no longer needs their house because they are no longer able to live in it, to expect them to use its value to pay for their new home, just because their new home is residential care?

If someone needs to move to a new area, or forms a new relationship and thus needs a different type of housing, do we say that it is appropriate for them to keep the value of their old home AND for the state to pay the cost of their new one? No - we expect them to sell / rent out their old home to fund the costs of the new one. Why is it different for the elderly?

@cantkeepawayforever ouch...

Most nursing home care isn’t medical anyway. It’s just wiping bums and spoon feeding type care with someone to do the cooking cleaning and laundry for you. I don’t think this is tax payers or the responsibility of the NHS if you have the money. It’s not like real medical care.

If a single person has worked hard all their single life, and has bought a flat or small house, do we say that they must be allowed to keep that flat or house and have their new housing funded 'from their contributions to the state' when their personal circumstances change and they marry and start a family? I genuinely don't see why the elderly should be able to keep the value of a house they no longer need, while no-one else can?

headstone Wiping bums and spoon feeding is medical care if it keeps them healthy. That part should be covered by the NHS and housing part should be covered by people's assets or housing benefit.

no one has explained why old age should be funded totally differently to other areas of health care.

Old age isn't an illness.

All medical/nursing needs are met by the NHS regardless of what age you are.

If you need social care as an adult you are subject to the same financial means testing regardless of what age you are or what your medical diagnosis is.

I'm not just making it up for shits and giggles. I'm a social worker and have been for too long. I've put care packages in place and arranged care homes for many many many adults over the years and can assure you that the people with MS, MND, learning difficulties, Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, liver failure, COPD, cancer, Stroke injuries, industrial accident injuries, brain tumours etc etc etc have all had to pay for their social care using their savings/assets if they have any just the same as people who need social care because they have become unable to meet their own needs as a result of age related diseases.

Are you going to make me say it again JasJas or are you going to accept that older people haven't got their own separate set of rules to everyone else when it comes to social care funding? Because they really really don't. I promise.

Thanks hatgirl. I was trying to work out how to explain that, but it is good to have such an authoritative answer.

Just for interest - for a child with social care needs, are there any differences in the way funding is arranged due to e.g. the crossover with education? Or is it just that they don't tend to have savings / assets?

Wiping bums and spoon feeding is medical care if it keeps them healthy

By that logic the state should also be funding the care provided by nurseries and childminders for many children.