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?

I’m surprised this has come as a shock OP, this has been happening for years. While I support a state where everyone supports each other, there is some unfairness in it all when the person in the next bed can be getting identical care for free when others can be paying over £800 per week in some cases.

My grandparents planned for his and passed their property to family early, paying capital gains tax. They now live in sheltered accommodation paying full rent and do have significant savings that would cover several years should they need care but they were happy their property would not be touched.

PurpleFlower1983, I do understand your perspective but there are so many people who can't afford to pay and they will have their reasons. Not everyone spends their money on clothes, booze and cigarettes; some have to drop out of the workforce to care for their parents, disabled children etc. Others become ill and can't work enough to save/pay for the asset required.

@lulu12345

Most people die and do not need years of nursing care in a home, approx 290k (of over 65's) are in residential care, 44% are self funded.

www.health.org.uk/publication/social-care-funding-options

We can and should fund social care, good social care would mean less hospital admissions, less bed blocking, save money... happier people!

We should NOT be advocating self funding of elderly health because Governments will then use this to stop or limit other health care funding, so why not force parents who have a disabled child to sell their home to pay back the costs of care for a Downs child when they die?

Its just another myth that we are somehow too poor to look after our elderly whilst at the same time announce a new space program, a new generation of jet fighters, huge cuts to corporation Tax and IHT thresholds.

Bluelady

I suggest you have internalized ageism, you may also have a bit of disability discrimination going on too, you don't want to be seen as weak? Celebrate old age and weakness, don't push it away! It's what happens to people.

notafeeling I completely agree, my Mum was medically retired in her 40s with an awful lifelong condition, it came as a shock as she had always been very fit and worked full time. It’s comforting to know that we live in a country that will support her. However, living where I do, there are many people who do not work for reasons other than illness. Many choose not to or work/claim at the same time. I don’t think the government can win really.

@jasjas1973

A care home is also accomadation though, we don't have universally free accomadation in this country.

AlarmClocks, keep your amateur psychology to yourself. I'm not weak, physically or mentally, and I'm not giving in to ageist shit any more than I give in to misogyny or racism. I find your attitude offensive.

Tess to see if medication may or may not help? Some forms of dementia respond, others don’t. That’s a starting point.

I find your ageism and disability discrimination offensive. Unlike you, I don't try to shut others up. I will continue to post opinions with or without your permission as you have no more control over me than you do your body.

Every body will fail eventually, we all age, it's fact.

For me, the point is that ultimately, everyone should have a safety net - that if they should get to the point in their lives when they cannot care or pay for themselves, a decent minimum universal standard of care and accommodation should be available to them. That is the hallmark of a civilised county.

However, that doesn't - to me - mean that everybody should be pro-actively given that care and accommodation free should they have assets or income that could pay for it.

It's like accommodation at any other time of life - yes, a decent minimum standard of accommodation should be available and funded by the state for those who cannot pay for it themselves. however, that is a safety net, and doesn't mean that everyone of whatever income or savings or other assets should be pro-actively given state-funded housing.

I am happy that, should my parents' careful provision for their own very old age not prove sufficient, and for whatever reason we as their children cannot help, the state will not leave them out on the streets. I am also perfectly happy that that should ONLY kick in once all their own sources of funding are exhausted.

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?

These are the main possibilities usually:

1. say a child with a severe speech and/or language disorder and there are no schools in the county, which have the expertise to educate them. In theory, children are legally entitled to have their special educational needs met by the local authority. In reality, parents probably have to pay to go to court and ask for a placement in a residential speech and language school. Its a 38 week (ie term time) placement from Monday to Friday, and the child comes home for weekends and school holidays. Education pays.
2. If the child has say autism with challenging behaviour, the parents and siblings can't cope any more. The parents may again have to go to court for a residential placement in a specialist school for autism for 38/48/52 weeks - as there are educational and social care needs, there can be joint funding of the placement by education and children's social services, where social services pays for the cost of the residential care bit.
3. If a child has say a severe medical condition, which impacts on their education (like causing learning disabilities) and behaviour, then there may be tri-partite funding for a specialist residential school placement, which may be 38/48/52 weeks, where education, children's social services and the NHS agree to pay the fees in a ratio say 55%:39%:16%.
4. If the child is still at home, but the parents need an additional carer after school and in the school holidays because of their behaviour arising from autism, etc, or respite then that is paid for by children's social services.
5. if the child is still at home, but the parents need an additional carer after school and school holidays, or respite, because of complex medical conditions, then they may get children's continuing healthcare funding from the NHS

headstone - Wiping bums and spoon feeding has never been paid for by the nhs though unless the patient is in hospital.

That is not true, if the needs are arising from a primary health condition! If the person has CHF, arising from a primary health care need, then it would be paid for by the NHS in a care home; it does not have to be in hospital. I have a DD, with uncontrolled epilepsy due to a brain abnormality, which also causes complex learning disabilities and meets the DST criteria under altered states of consciousness as a priority - which in itself means she qualifies for CHF iirc, although she is severe and high for quite a few of the other domains too. Normally, she can feed herself and go to the toilet, but when she is having lots of seizures, she may need spoon feeding, and be doubly incontinent - this is funded by the NHS in a specialist epilepsy care home; not a hospital.

As for OP, ITA that the cost of all social care should be spread across the population through a progressive tax system - otherwise its a lottery, whereby 1 in 4 can pay 100% of everything they own, while 3 in 4 don't, thereby rewarding the feckless. However, I would also tackle high house prices by banning foreign investors from buying property here; and having a proper social housing building scheme.

@headstone Sorry but owning a house worth 80k doesn't make you middle class. That's hilarious. It isn't an ex council house either so no he doesn't owe any funds back.

But I thought that was the whole point of encouraging people to buy houses... So they could fund their old age if they needed care

This has only been a thing for 10 years or so.

I would also say, btw, that loopholes currently available to the canny / well advised / well educated / rich - trust funds, early transfer of assets or large 'gifts' to children etc - should not be legal as a way of forcing the state to pay.

We should ALL pay much more tax.

Its too late to try and address inequality through a few expensive homes later in life. Everyone in the UK should pay lots more tax.

There should, however, be no expectation of selling a house that a spouse relies on as their only home, and a sensible minimum amount of savings / assets that should be left for that spouse.

I don't think everyone should pay more tax. Many of those on lower incomes are already struggling.

The sale of a house which is occupied by a spouse or someone over 60 can't be forced but a charge can be put on it which takes effect when the property's sold.

Anyone thinking of giving all their assets away/putting it in trust, etc is deluded if they think local authorities aren't all over this and, unlike IHT, there's no time limit. Having seen the conditions that LA funded residents live in round here, you'd be completely bonkers to do it.

The point of paying more tax would be that people on lower incomes would not need to struggle so much as there would bebetter schools better health care and a better benefits safety net. But they should still pay proportionally more tax.

I don't know why anyone would risk it! We have no idea what awaits us if we get old and infirm and have nothing to fall back on. The world is getting crueler, not nicer.

Personally, I would happily pay more tax to help pay for more social care but I wouldn't expect those on lower incomes to. Neither do I presume to speak for anyone else.

karting Its not a bizarre statement. There has been a question as to why my fathers doctors are treating him like it's an end of life disease. He has prostate cancer and they fobbed him off then tried to get a co-diagnosis with Parkinson's so they wouldn't need to treat the prostate cancer. At this point he was 72 and had stage 4 cancer. The treatment he has received for his prostate cancer has been subpar and using medical practices from 40+ years ago in the US and Canada.

tess A dementia diagnosis is hard to get but Parkinson's is a lot easier. IMO it's all to do with funding. The NHS don't want to diagnose expensive conditions when they can fit you into a diagnosis where treatment plans are cheaper.

Better schools and better healthcare might not be priorities for those who can't afford to feed their families.

On the subject of 'when are you considered elderly', tying together the point when the state healthcare system thinks of you as elderly and when it expects you to no longer work full time seems sensible.

Of course, not everyone is remotely elderly at state retirement age BUT it does make much more logical sense than declaring someone 'elderly' at a point when they are still expected to be working (60 or the even odder 55 - 55 is not much above half my life expectancy based on family longevity)

We all need to pay more tax. It's ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

@Blagora If you believe that those on a low income need to pay more tax then you need to educate yourself and have some empathy. Lots of people are already struggling and aren't concerned about education or healthcare because they're more bothered about what they're going to be eating that week and how they're going to pay the rent.