To think that if you have the funds to pay for your care home needs then you absoloutley should?

[BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz]

Interesting chat with a friend the other day about the extortionate costs of care homes and how if you live in social housing/rental and are on benefits then the government will pay for your care yet if you have "worked hard all your life and want to leave something for your kids" you are made to sell your home / use savings to pay for your care.

Friend is of the opinion that everyone who requires a care home should have it paid for by the government. So essentially a "hand out" yet also is of the opinion that those on benefits are getting "hand outs" and looks on them with scorn.

My personal opinion is that if you have the means to fund your own care home needs then yes; you absoloutley should pay for some or all of that. Why should the government fork out millions for every care home resident in the country so that a vast amount of them can then hand their properties and extensive savings down to their children?

It's simply not viable to fund 100% of care home needs across the country and if you are the kind of person who gets smug about "paying my way all my life" to the tune of living mortgage free in a 300k plus home with vast savings then you should be happy to continue "paying your way" til the end.

I also pointed out to her that as she will be funding her own care she will likely have more say in where she goes.

The end result was we both agreed the best solution was to swerve the care home altogether but I wondered whether I was BU to expect someone who can afford to pay for their care to actually pay for their care?

I think part of the problem OP is that there isnt a cap on costs. Some care homes charge crazy amounts becuase they can. The government needs to introduce a cap so that those who pay can still have something to pass on to their families, especially as care is free in scotland and wales!

• My parents are in their 50s. They have legally signed the deeds of their mortgage free house over to me and my brother as well as their savings. This is on the verbal understanding that we don't use any of the savings until they have died. If they need care in their 70s/80s the government cannot force the sale of the house as it belongs to me and my brother as does all of their savings.*

If they are no longer benefitting from the assets they have signed over to you, then fair enough.

If you and/or your brother found yourself going through a divorce, the house would likely be divided as a marital assets.

If your parents are living in the house without paying you the owners rent at a fair market rate, it might be worth looking up gift with reservations.

Because Mrs Smith might want to choose how to spend her money and leave it to her dc. I will. It won’t make much difference when I’m in my dotage as to the card home I go to as long as Om treated kindly.My prioritise will always be my children.

you might want to treat yourself to some comfort in your 90s, surely? you may think your offspring have done very well for themselves thank you very much

I like worriedmum's suggestion of a cap at a percentage of people's assets. Capping at a set figure mean's the very poor pay nothing, the rich hardly notice but ex nurses, teachers etc lose nearly everything.

I’d hate my parents to make themselves so vulnerable as to sign over their assets after working incredibly hard for too many years. And of course I trust myself and siblings to do the right thing but they should feel protected.

Treat myself to comfort. I’d only go into a care home if I absolutely had to. My need should then be treated the same as anybody else and not judged on how well I saved. I’d love to pass on something to help my children, it means more to me than anything.

I'm a bit on the fence, I think it's a joke that those who have their own home/savings have to pay however there isn't enough money in the pot for everyone to get it paid. My Nan was buried only last week after living in care homes for the last 4 years after being diagnosed with dementia. Her home was sold to pay for it.
However what is a farce is the people living in care homes, getting funding for it as they have no savings getting their winter fuel allowance! What the actual fuck - that is just money going down the drain. And it's true, a relative has been in a care home for the last 15 years and has received this money every year. I wonder how much more funding could be put into this system if non fee paying residents didn't get the allowance.

The way I see it everyone has an obligation to support themselves. Those who don’t pay have failed to meet their obligations but as a kind and generous society we help them. Not because we are obliged to, not because they deserve free care, but because it’s kind. That is all.

quite right velveteen

But where is the kindness to those forced to hand over their house? It causes huge upset, anguish and then the trauma when after a very short time the fees have eaten it up and you worry about what will happen to you.

Kindness I don’t think so. It’s barbaric and unfair.

My mum had early onset dementia but is otherwise completely healthy, she has been in a care home now for 10 years and has spent around £240,000 in care home fees. She doesn't remember any one or anything but still has a healthy appetite so technically could have another 10 years in her (I will be distraught when she goes, but I know if she could choose she would have wanted to go along time ago). Surely there should be some cap to this to say she has paid her dues for her care?

If you think it’s barbaric and unfair, then so is everything that’s means tested. Looking after people who are frail and vulnerable is one of the tenets of a civilised society.

And heating allowance is £200 ffs, what difference would it make? Talk about bloody petty.

Collectively it’s huge.

Taking homes off old people, charging them more ,forcing them to sell then booting them out to another home they don’t know at an old age and making them worry for years before is barbaric.

Means testing child benefit is unfair but it’s not barbaric.

But where is the kindness to those forced to hand over their house?

This is like saying "but where is the kindness" to those "forced" to pay for anything at all.

As it stands, in your usual non-care-home life, if you have money (through working, or through inherited wealth, or whatever) you pay for your own housing. If you don't have the money to pay for rent or a mortgage, then the state provides you with some very basic benefits to get a roof over your head. (This often works better in theory than in practice, but the principle is there.)

Why should this change just because you are older? If you moved from a house into a different house, just because you fancied it, the state wouldn't pay the rent or mortgage on the new house while you gave the proceeds of your first house to your kids. You wouldn't complain that the estate agents were "forcing" you to give your house to them just because they gave you a different house in exchange.

So I do not see why anyone moving into a care home should have that paid by the state if they still have a lot of money themselves.

LooseMoose how would you do it? Everyone has care paid for? Where does the huge amount needed come from

It isn’t just rent it’s care, it’s the care that costs.

Everybody should pay for care the minute they start work.

Means testing child benefit is unfair but it’s not barbaric.

It’s not unfair at all, it’s not giving it to people who don’t need it.

Families earning £80k joint a year don’t need it more than families on £50k single income but they still get it in its entirety. It is unfair.

If they don't need their house they absolutely should 'hand it over'. It's not barbaric, what emotive language. It's just swapping one form of accomodation for another. EVeryones priority should be taking responsibility and paying for care needed when possible as they age. Not stockpiling it to pass it on to DC who may not even need it, and expecting low paid families to pay yet more tax to subsidise them.
We can't expect to be kept alive well into our 80's and 90's in our millions and pay nothing. Older people get enough non means tested benefits (often not needed). We can't have it both ways.

I'm on the fence too.

Families earning £80k joint a year don’t need it more than families on £50k single income but they still get it in its entirety. It is unfair.

The process is unfair, I grant you. The means testing isn’t.

It is barbaric if you have loved that home for years and want the proceeds to go to your children, having worked for that all your life. Having it wrenched off you and what you have worked for snatched away, whilst being charged more for the same care is appalling. I’m guessing youngsters that can afford private healthcare shouldn’t get NHS care going by your logic.

Plenty can afford to save but choose not to. Others shouldn’t be forced to subsidise that.

My logic says nothing of the sort because the NHS isn’t and never should be means tested.