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?

You provide for your children when that's what they are. For most people needing care those "children" will be at least middle aged. Any responsibility for providing for them is decades in the past. If you save your money - as I am - to protect your old age, they can have what, if anything, is left. There's no right to an inheritance and certainly not at the expense of young tax payers.

One of the greatest incentives in life is, or should be, providing for your children.

Should it?

Sure, while they are dependant children, but as adults? One of my greatest things to do was to encourage and enable my adult children to provide for themselves.

One of the greatest incentives in life is, or should be, providing for your children

But surely what you want to provide for their children - when they are children, or at least before they are independent - is the skills and preparation for becoming independent? For being able to stand on their own two feet when they leave home, and not needing you - except emotionally - any more?

As i said much earlier, what my parents gave me was the ability to be independent of them when i became an adult. They would feel that they had not have done their job if when I was in late middle age I still NEEDED them to give me the value of their house instead of it being used to look after THEM...

That's all very well if we were back in the 70s.

But now my dcs can work 100 hours a week but won't be as well off as someone who has had the good fortune to have a granny die in Surrey. A friend from school has just bought a flat in Putney for her dc with the proceeds of her parents' house.

I put my hands up and admit it's the politics of envy, but I couldn't buy my dcs a manhole in Cleethorpes.

Before home ownership was on a grand scale, big inheritances were rare. Now, especially with the accompanying house inflation, there are gulfs between the lucky inheritors and those who are still relying solely on their own graft.

One of the greatest incentives in life is, or should be, providing for your children

I sort of agree, but surely the best way to "provide" for your children is to prepare them to become independent, self-sufficient adults that contribute positively to the world. As a PP said, I'd feel like I'd failed in that objective if my late middle aged children were counting on me dying and leaving them an inheritance to shore up their financial position.

There's no right to an inheritance and certainly not at the expense of young tax payers.

Indeed.

The best way to provide for your children is to ensure they have a secure loving life as children, with support for education, learning and development so they can become independent.

And not need or rely on you dying.

It’s extremely distasteful of the OP to be looking forward to, and counting on her mother’s death. Which is what an “inheritance” is - the consequence of someone dying.

You should read some Dickens. Every other character is obsessed with their “great expectations” of an older family member. In Bleak House one character never gets a proper job as he is waiting (in vain) for an inheritance.

It's difficult to know what the alternatives are for saving for care. It's not possible as far as I know to get insurance which would pay out in the event that you would need long term care.

The costs are around £40,000 a year which most people don't even earn so even the very comfortably off would be doing well to fund more than ten years.

I don't see the solution to this?

Having worked as a social worker in an older people’s service for a long time, I have reached some conclusions:

1.) I would far rather have every asset sold to ensure my loved ones can choose the right care home for me, than have a professional do this.
2.) Most people genuinely care about their relatives and understand why savings must be used and homes must be sold but there is a minority who are far more concerned about their inheritance.
3.) The average person does not realise how much social care costs both local and central government.
4.) Too few people express their wishes to their loved ones which leaves things in a right old mess when they are unwell and have lost capacity to make decisions such as; where to live and what care is required.
5.) There is a disconnect in understanding the line between health and social care but I understand this as the lines can be blurred. Lots of people fall into a grey area but many people clearly have “only” social care needs.
6.) People don’t fully understand that it isn’t an age thing. If you’re 35 and single and own a property and end up knocked down by a car with a brain injury and need social care in a residential home, you are financially assessed in exactly the same way as you would if you were 85 and developed dementia.

I understand it must feel galling to sell a much loved family home but I wish people understood that money gives you choices.

I had more I wanted to say but got distracted.

No I don't either. I think the future is quite scary. Conditions at work is declining, pensions are not as good, healthcare is struggling. I think today's pensioners, who just missed the war at the start of their lives and have had reasonable standards of living throughout their lives, fairly long retirements and adequate health care at the end of their lives probably have been the luckiest generation ever.

You should read some Dickens.

Dickens isn’t exactly complimentary about those characters expecting inheritances, however.

Jane Austen is equally scathing about those who relied on their expectations. Trollope as well. While Wilkie Collins basically turns people’s expectations of inheriting property into the first detective novels.

I can't believe people think I should pay more tax so they can still inherit.

I work in a care home. I don't earn a lot. More than the living wage but barely.

DP and I earn just too much to claim any TC/HB etc and are unlikely to ever be able to afford to buy a property. We very much live hand to mouth.

More tax would financially cripple us.

But hey as long as you still inherit

Yes, no "great expectations" for dh and I. All we have is what we earn. Taking more of that to fund current and upcoming old people's care would be abusive to us and generations behind us who will not be enjoying the same. Or anything like it.

Ifailed

I find the arguement "my parents worked hard to buy their house, so should be able to leave it for their family" a bit odd. What about a family where the parents didn't work quite so hard? Are people proposing some sort of test as to how hard someone worked before deciding whether they, or tax-payers should fund their care?

Working hard is one of these phrases that's constantly being thrown around to justify different things. I think it's a reaction to the criticism of 'benefit scroungers'. People have a terrible fear of being labelled as a 'taker' rather than a hard worker because there's a general thing that people on benefits are 'scroungers', though as far as I can see it's very hard to get benefits even if you are disabled or a carer or unemployed. So it seems getting benefits is also hard work, as is surviving on them.

As far as I understand if you have savings or get an inheritance you lose benefits or don't get them until the money is gone. No matter how hard you worked.

I think people are not really sure of what the situation is regarding what the state provides until they are in a situation and find out. I wonder at what point people would be comfortable or uncomfortable with losing assets to provide care of any sort.

For example let's say someone owns a house and receives benefits. Should they have to sell their house and rent and live until they are penniless before they receive benefits? Does it make a difference if they worked hard for their house or if they inherited it? Should someone with a £200000 house have to sell and buy a house worth £100000 and live off that before receiving benefits?

Is owning a house worth £100000 different from having £100000 in the bank that you have also worked hard for, but you chose to not put all your money into a house? Or you managed to save £30000 over a lifetime through hard work but you never managed to buy a house at all.

From reading the thread it seems naice care homes are only for homeowners. Hard luck if you never got to buy one.

A lot of care homes charge more than they would if those privately paying were not also topping up the very poor as the local authorities won'[t pay market rate - it's like paying a higher school fee to fund bursaries for families where one parent eg chooses not to work whilst you are busting a gut working full time to pay one set of fees and someone else can walk in who doesn't even work and because of low income (i.e. chose in this case to have no income) gets what you work for.

Life is just never very fair so we all just have to make the best of the hand we are dealt and get on with it.

A lot of care homes won't take LA funded residents for this very reason. They make more money if there's no subsidy.

A bit depressing all round, the sheer cost of it all for some

Do people shop for the no subsidy ones or is it too unknown?

No one from a family where there is no chance of any inheritance should pay a penny more tax to protect the inheritance of people like the OP

however it is massively unfair that some inheritances get passed on untouched, while others are reduced to £16,000 or whatever the songs maximum is, based on a lottery of whether your final illness, whatever it is, kills you quickly or slowly. Not every care home resident has dementia by the way.

The dementia tax was a brilliant solution - the howls against it should have been ignored. What we need to do as a society is pool the risks, costs and potential benefits between those who have assets significantly above the savings threshold. If everyone who has assets over a certain level could just have a choice, at the age of 55 say, to either have a charge of £30,000 put on their home (payable only after death when the property is sold) OR agree to pay all their care needs in full - wouldn't that solve it? For some obviously the gamble wouldn't pay off as they would die without needing significant care - and their capital contribution would help fund the care costs of those who survive longer and end up needing way more than £30k worth of care.

I can't see anything wrong with that Imchlibob - but does it include care for people with no assets? Wouldn't people with assets be annoyed that their assets are funding people with none (from the 'financially reckless' to the 'benefit scroungers' to the people who didn't 'work hard' all their lives)? I think it would have to be a percentage of assets, with those assets having to be over a certain figure before the tax applied (what figure though)?

My grandmother died feom alzheimers. She died in a geriatric mental health unit. She was there for five years. When she entered she had forgotten who her family were. Her family visited daily and helped to nurse her. Over five years ahe forgot how to eat, how to drink, how to walk, and became doubly incontinent. She was 4 stone when she died. Her family bought her a special vibrating bed for the last year. She received NHS care because she needed that level of clinical care. It would not be available today.

Alzheimers is a wicked disease that ends in death. Just as cancer does. Why should there be a differentiation between a mental and physical disease that is terminal?

I shall not hesitate to pass most of my money to my dc by the time I am 70. I intend to drink and take up smoking again to my hearts content as soon as I'm 70. I don't see the point of teying to avoid a physical terminal disease when the NHS will take care of me for that but not for a terminal mental health condition. I am supporting dignitas more ardently each year pases. If I end up unable to wipe my own backside, nobody else need do it for me.

Roses im sorry you saw your gran go through that

@Apileofballyhoo I see this as an add-on over the existing system which is designed to be revenue-neutral both for public finances and for the care industry and (on average) for the amount spent by private individuals on geriatric care.

So the same as now, those who either never saved or deliberately spend their savings on cruises and fun will get the level of care that can be afforded from general taxation - I think local authority places tend to be circa £500-£600 a week and cam be pretty grim. Whereas those who are paying tend to choose places that cost more and have generally better conditions.

All it is doing is sharing out the overall cost among those who would have to pay because no one knows as they approach old age usually in relatively good health whether they are going to be getting heart troubles, other major organ issues, cancer, or alzheimers or whatever. So it makes sense to agree in advance that everyone contributes a bit rather than letting the unlucky ones bear the future burden. It would be optional - anyone could choose to agree to pay the full cost if they needed it (until they run out of money and the state steps in) with the potential reward that if they didn't need it they get to hand on their inheritance in full.

Except that I see a flaw. It's clear from this thread that some families make heroic efforts to keep granny out of a care home and in some cases this might be partially motivated from wanting to keep the inheritance intact. Would demand increase if people would be contributing the same whether or not they went into a care home? Would they still do everything to avoid residential care until it is unavoidable? I certainly would as even the nicer kind of care home would be worse than being in my own home but I am not sure if this would be universal.

I like the idea of pooling risks @Imchlibob but I think the cost to us all would need to be well in excess of a one off £30k to fund it. I agree with your later point that demand would increase if "nice" care became accessible to all through this scheme and so we'd probably need to make an assumption that the average person might spend, say, their last two years in a care home... I'm guessing here, obviously some people could chug along for 10+ years and some wouldn't enter it at all... but if that were a correct assumption then we'd all need to be contributing at least the cost of 2 years care (plus all the admin).

How is this any different to an increased inheritance tax? (Other than being optional.)

My mother always said to stick her in a care home as she had seen too many adult children's lives ruined by living with old parents. My friend at school had to share a bed (neve rmind a room ) with her granny for example which was not ideal. however luckily m mother's 6 weeks of dying at 76 was at home (we don't live too long in my family - may be the NE mining genes - short tough lives etc? - this can be a regional issue too - same with care homes my children's other side family in Yorkshire - the care homes I saw there were very nice places and even those with local authority funding some or all places in there - in some areas where property is very very cheap and wages not too high (not that they are ever high in care home) and perhaps there is less demand as there are fewer people it can be a slightly different picture from other areas of the country although it is certainly generally a nationwide problem.

A lot of care homes won't take LA funded residents for this very reason. They make more money if there's no subsidy

Which is why the system is broken, these so called poorer patients are stuck on general wards, even those with means (such as my Mum) could not be found a home or nursing care at home, even though she had the money to pay for it.

I dont get how a universal funded system would increase demand? the vast majority of people want to live in their own homes, better home care means less falls and that is the over riding reason people need residential care, not because they have dementia.

Going round in circles moaning about someones inheritance, doesnt solve the problem of homes closing, staff leaving and bed blocking.