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?

Please see her assets as a positive. It means she has choice. For example, if she had nothing, yes, her care would be funded. However, if we were comparing to hotels the council would fund for a 2 star. If you have money you can shop around and choose somewhere that will suit the person best in terms of environment, facilities and location. Yes, you can still choose the 2 star if you want but you can also choose the 3 or 4 star.

Haven’t RTFT but...
You could always move your Mum in witth you and care for her until she passes OP, and then get your inheritance. Or you could outsource your mums likely vast caring needs to a care home, and pay for that using the money that would have gone to you.

Why should you get a house for nothing and have other people do the demanding work of caring, washing, feeding, nurturing an elderly person for free?!

To get state funding you need to be in need of 24 hour care where 4 visits a day is no longer sufficient. Experience from placing a relative is that this mainly means over night support is required. Being able to get out to the theatre would indicate they don't need that level of support

princess I don't see how. I work hard, contribute (perhaps not in huge taxes these days, but in societal involvement and volunteering at school) and generally don't have much left over in savings. Enough for the minor rainy days like the washing machine dying or whatever. I live in a council house. I don't have a snowball's chance in hell of funding years - or even months - in a care home should I need it. That makes me "the real problem"?

helforddreams

NI can’t find care for everyone and the NHS
It can barely cover the NHS

I think everyone should have to pay the same percentage of what they have. So if you have no assets or money you pay (eg 50%) which would be nothing, but if (like my grandparents) you've worked and saved hard all your life to provide for your family then you pay (eg.50)% and still have something to show for your hard work.

My mum isn't in the slightest bit bothered about her inheritance, but my grandad is Debra Yates that they're spending it all on my grandmothers care.

It's a complete myth that younger people with cancer etc don't have to pay. They do.

But often it’s frequently unnecessary. Many people who have cancer will have a healthy partner who can help care for them. Plus many, many people with cancer live relatively normal lives requiring the minimum of care until shortly before their deaths when home nursing or hospices kick in.

The problems mainly arise when someone has a long term condition and a deceased (or divorced) partner and has an illness like dementia which requires years and years of care not a few months.

If a non-elderly person requires care, they are not asked to fund it. Yes they are. All social care for adults over 18 is means tested. The ONLY exception is care provided under section 117 of the Mental Health Act.

Social Care is means tested, health care is paid for via NI. If a person with cancer needs treatment in hospital, this is covered by NI via the NHS. If a person with cancer has treatment, and the side effects result in them being too weak to prepare their own meals, wash themselves etc, that is social care and is means tested.

Whether provided in their own home, a relatives home or a care/ nursing home the 'care' element is means tested. The health element - such as the additional paid to a nursing home above a care home, is funded by the NHS. Care in your own home does not take the value of the property in to consideration, care in a residential home will, as you no longer need your own home to live in.

It isn't complicated really.

Also, more expensive care does not mean better care - it usually means nicer décor and richer owners. In the authority I work in the best care home charge the local authority rate to ALL residents, not just those placed or funded by the LA. Th emost expensive home in our area, which also looks the nicest has the highest number of safeguarding's of any home, I wouldn't place a rat there.

It’s not your house it’s her house and if she needs the money from it to pay for her care then I guess you won’t be inheriting it.
My Mum has a house and some money, if I inherit anything great but I expect absolutely nothing

I felt I owed it her, and I will care for both of my parents. Today it's everyones responsibility but ours and we expect the state to pay for it

I think your thinking is too black and white. You ignore the reality of people’s lives, what needs to happen to keep roofs over heads and food on plates or indeed, the challenges of living with someone hallucinating all kinds of crap that frightens or someone who is awake at 3am and decides they need to cook NOW. My mum needs 24 hour care. I am an only child and a single parent. I could literally never leave the house without her, not even to take my children to school. My children would witness their grandmothers literally clawing the door to get out whilst threatening us with knives or physically punching me.

I would love to be able to care for her. But it’s not going to happen if I want to keep my sanity and have my children’s home a sanctuary not a battleground.

I don’t consider it anyone else’s responsibility to care for her. I work hard, the house will eventually be sold to pay for it. Any comfort I might have had in middle age as a result of inheritance will be lost. My children will lose any advantage their grandmother’s property would have given them. It is tough. Very tough. And we have every right to be pissed off about it and do not deserve judgement from the sanctimonious who have never had to do it.

To all those saying they willensure that they have no assets such that the LA will be obliged to step in and fund their care, firstly the adage of "aske not your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" springs to mind, but secondly, have you been in a(n) LA care home? They are fairly grim in comparison to the homes that cater to self funders. No comparison actually.
With no assets you get no choice, if you have assets, you can ensure that your last years are spent in relative comfort. As much as I would like to inherit from my parents, I'd far sooner any money was spent on looking after them in the nicest possible surroundings in their last years of life and if that means selling their house to fund their care, so be it.
The question we should really be asking is why care homes are so expensive, many are private businesses, I'd sooner they have charitable status and breakeven rather than make profit. That doesn't sit well with me but then neither does the fact that many private schools are also operated as profit making businesses.

Potsetyoghurt, did you miss the sentence in my post where I say “if they have a a choice”. Obviously if you are on the breadline you cannot build savings and assets. There are lots of people who don’t believe in saving for a rainy day and live well beyond means and that’s the ones i am talking about

Times have changed. I know lots of people who have looked into how they can pass on inheritances to their children while they are still healthy and relatively young - though it's morally questionable it's also understandable especially during this transitional time when as a society we do still expect/hope our children will inherit what we worked for.

Being able to get out to the theatre would indicate they don't need that level of support

Again, clueless. My mother needs 24 hour care. Her hospital discharge paperwork and social worker say so. She is physically fine and enjoys going out with friends, having dinner, seeing a show. Not all people who need care are confined to beds, unable to move.

YANBU. It is disgusting that someone that has worked all of their life can lose their home while someone that hasn't earned anything gets taken care of in exactly the same way.

This. It’s wrong that some people pay nothing for care because they haven’t worked so have no assets, while others who have worked hard have to fork out. It also puts an unfair financial burden on families where people need care. And worst of all, it encourages the elderly to end their lives so they can leave an inheritance to help their family.

My Mum could afford a house but is purposely living in rented accommodation and spending her money so she doesn’t have to fork out for care fees if she needs them. I own a house but regard it as my DS’s future - I fully intend to commit suicide if I need care, rather than deprive my kids of the advantage of inheriting my house.

This wouldn’t be an issue if houses weren’t so expensive. If houses were cheap then losing one to care costs wouldn’t be a tragedy that potentially excludes the next 2-3 generations of a family from home ownership.

There is a definite mindset out there of "I would sooner rot away in a miserable hellhole after leaving my assets to my children than spend the last decade or so of my life living in comfort with pleasant surroundings funded by the sale of my home". Sad but true. Though I don't know anyone who is actually living that reality yet...

Lets get a few things straight. you are not being forced to sell your mums house who is holding a shotgun to your head? Why do you feel you have to sell? The answer is .....you’re not!

What you have done is bung your mum in a nursing home that you can’t afford to pay for, then you’re bitching because fees have to be met. If your mum was stopping in a hotel for the last 16 months with no income other than her pension of let’s say £250 a week to cover a hotel that charges let’s say £500 a week, your mum would soon run out of funds, how else would she pay? She’d have to release some of her funds from her home.

Sorry love, but it’s not up to me to fund your mums lifestyle. If you want 100% of her house once’s she’s gone, you have to have her live with you. But don’t expect me and the rest of the tax payers to fund this, your mums and your choice. If your mum is too poorly to live in her own home, she needs to live somewhere else. Somewhere else is never going to be free of charge.

Yabvu and greedy in wanting it all. Like you said in your opening statement it’s your mums house still, it’s not yours yet, if you don’t want to spend money on her care, let her live with you. I don’t think national insurance needs to cover nursing homes, it barely covers the running of the real nhs.

That was probably around the time that house prices became so high that it needed two salaries to afford one. It is very rare for someone to be able to afford to quit their job and look after a relative with dementia. I wasn't judging.. just stating the fact hat we no longer do this, like many other things families used to do this has been 'outsourced'.

Bemoaning it or picking at the reasons won't help. Society has changed. Elder care has changed. We ALL need to get our heads round this, as it will be us soon enough!

I had to sell my mum's home to fund her health care - thankfully she had previously got involved in an equity release scheme and had a bloody good time spending it before she succumbed to dementia.

I've learnt from this that you need to have SOME assets to enable you to have a choice in your care - my brother and I looked at some shockers before finding the home she's in now. However, there is absolutely no point in having shed loads of equity/money in old age.

It’s wrong that some people pay nothing for care because they haven’t worked so have no assets, while others who have worked hard have to fork out.

It's just an extension of it being wrong for people never to work to fund their lives whilst others do though isn't it.

Its not a reason not to fund your own life including care and housing.

Mum desperately wants to leave me her house but I've told her if she needs to sell it for her care she should.

But don’t expect me and the rest of the tax payers to fund this, your mums and your choice. If your mum is too poorly to live in her own home, she needs to live somewhere else. Somewhere else is never going to be free of charge.

But you're happy to fund the feckless and the idle who haven't worked a day in their lives and saved nothing. Your moral compass needs adjusting.

Was talking with family about this the other day. I said I reckon I'd kill myself before I had my house sold off to go into a care home, so that it could be passed down to my kids.

Reason I bought a house are so we don't have to move every so often as with renting, so avoid disrupting DC and associated moving costs, and so if we get to retirement hopefully mortgage is paid off we won't have to pay rent or mortgage out of retirement funds.

Took a decade of saving for deposit and we’ll be paying for decades more– and there is a lot that can still go wrong.

If we do pay it off it will be an asset that will still need money spent on it though it could go down in value over the time as well.

Hopefully we can cash in by downsizing or giving choice with care home or leaving something for children – but it’s main reason it to put a roof over our heads now. It’s the reason my parents and IL bought not to leave an inheritance but to put a roof over their heads.

I wonder as increasing numbers can't buy and have to rent how that will work with retirement and old age care costs.