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?

My mum is 65 and has been in a nursing home for 6 years as she has MS and dementia - prior to that she was in a residential home for 10 years with carers who visited 4 times a day.

I’m really on the fence here. My mum has never worked a day in her life - she had me and my sibling and claimed benefits from that moment onwards. She doesn’t pay for her nursing home as she had no assets, I however pay a ‘top up’ fee for her to live in the home she does.

What’s the answer? Leave her to rot as she has never contributed to the system (although she did raise me & I am a higher tax payer as took advantage of a free uni place and decided I didn’t want a life of benefits) or provide her care? It sounds cruel but I wish she would die. My mum has no quality of life, she lies in a bed 24/7 and she is only 65. She can’t feed herself, drink by herself, wash herself etc. She is blind and mute. She could live another 30 years although I doubt it with her ill health.

My mother gave me my inheritance ahead of time. In the event that she needs care; the state will not be able to take anything much at all.

In all honesty, I don’t really care how that looks to other people. She’s set me up for life in my home, and I’ll do the same for my DC.

That sounds awful for you motherrunner

Does anyone know if you do as pp when deprivation of assets kicks in

Motherrunner so hard

Thank you @Trewser and @MarshaBraydo, hope it doesn’t sound like a pity party.

She has a DNR and each year around winter time develops sepsis as she develops infections easily and each year I ‘hope’ it’ll be the year she’ll pass peacefully. My eldest child is 8 and she has never ‘seen’ her of held her, I’m not sure if she realises I have children as she doesn’t communicate.

On a brighter note I take my children each week to visit her and they are very much aware of people with different needs and disabilities and they also cheer the other residents up!

It’s just not fair though is it? People who have gone out to work for 40 odd years then have to sell their hard earned house whilst others in the same care home are getting a freebie. I’m definitely on the fence but if I ever have to go into a home i’ll Feel extremely resentful.

I'm all for those who can afford to paying for their own care. Why should I pay for them just so they can pass on their £500k house to their kids? I'm very happy to pay for those who don't have the means to and I'm very happy to sell my own house when it comes to it. I grew up outside the UK and find the British obsession with passing your house on to your kids really difficult to understand. My PiLs are obsessed with passing their house on to their kids, even though both DH and BiL are doing quite well in life and don't need the inheritance.

I really wish people would stop insinuating that if you don't own your own home you are a lazy layabout. Sure, there's some but I'm 42, single parent, never been unemployed since 15. Have moved to get closer to childcare so I can work. But always private rented. And that means that with rent and childcare any savings are woefully low and end up on things like new white goods when they break etc. I've worked hard, and still do, in both main jobs I've worked I've been promoted, wouldn't have been if I was a lazy layabout, but in a traditionally low income industry. Ironically for 10 years that was in care. By the time I've saved enough for a deposit I'll probably be too old for a mortgage anyway. It's the way my life's gone for various reasons, but not because I didn't work hard, or try, or have aspirations.
People are quite willing to use the services that I've been doing over the years, and use services I contribute towards with tax and NI. So I guess if and when I need care I should just go and live under a bridge in a box so homeowners can continue to feel virtuous about them being able to buy and me not.

if I ever have to go into a home i’ll Feel extremely resentful.

If you ever have to go into a care home, the chances are you won’t know what day it is so you’ll be completely oblivious.

As a pp mentioned there are care homes that do not take state funded places. I reckon these will become more in demand as people will want more for their £1k per week rather than state subsidies - they will ask where their money goes.

I’d hate to think that choice is denied to anyone because they’ve passed on their asset to their dc for free care, which may be substandard. It makes the parent vulnerable.

I'm sorry if I upset anyone with my views on euthanasia. This view is how I would see the situation for myself and nobody else.
Everyone is different but I think there should be a choice for people like myself who would hate to live without quality of life, laying in a bed with nothing to live for.
It's just how I feel but I do appreciate not everyone does including my own dh and family members. A few others agree with my views but it's not a subject people like to talk about! The bills would never get passed as it is. It is too controversial.

My parents and my inlaws didn't own a property and they were not lazy or scrounging; the complete opposite in fact. A lot of people are rich because of house prices. They forget all that though!

What do they do in other countries? I think Japan has the highest number of elderly people relative to younger people?

We are in danger of having too many old people and not enough younger ones.
Some baby boomers are only late sixties or early seventies and many are not at the needing care but yet! It is a time bomb ticking away and the problem is scarcely spoken about.

On Japan

It was an unusual intervention. Masaharu Fukuyama, Japan’s equivalent of Brad Pitt, had just announced his marriage to fellow film star Kazue Fukiishi.
As messages congratulating the couple poured in, Japan’s chief cabinet minister had something rather more blunt to say to them.
“I hope this marriage inspires mothers to want to contribute to their country by feeling like they want to have more children,” said Yoshihide Suga. “Please have lots of children.”

We also have a climate crisis going on. Reducing population is good for this.

I’d love to hear the solutions but it is a potential time bomb. I hope we get better at dealing with both.

Reducing population is good for this
reducing population by not having children is not a good thing for the human race as a whole, populations can implode leaving only elderly people with no young people to look after them no young people to innovate and bring society forward
it's difficult to see a solution to the problem of growing numbers of elderly frail people who are unable to care for themselves whilst young couples are increasingly disincentivized to have children because of of rising housing costs etc
Large family homes are occupied by frail elderly people visited by several carers every day whilst young people who need family homes are crammed into small flats and house shares working all the hours god sends with no time or money to have children

No it’s not good for elderly as I said

There are two conflicting major issues however.

I notice the Japanese minister makes his appeal to mothers but not to fathers....
presumably he realises that if society expected men to bear their share of the burden and cost of producing new humans we wouldn't have enough new humans to make a functioning society

I boughty home assomewhere to live to be secure and hopefully not have to fork out rent when I'm on my pension.It is also to pay for care I may need.
My only quibble is paying over the odds in a nursing home subsidising those payed for,inadequately,by the council.

Those who sell their homes to pay for their care, mostly haven't earned all the value of the home, rather they are the recipients of windfall courtesy of the massive rise in property prices.
Yes people who work hard and do the right thing should be rewarded, but by and large we are all only able to earn money because of the collective efforts of society as a whole, if you are a business owner you benefit from the fact that you live in a country where there is rule of law people are educated there are roads to drive on etc etc

People who have gone out to work for 40 odd years then have to sell their hard earned house whilst others in the same care home are getting a freebie.

SuperMeerkat but the people who are "getting a freebie" will also probably have worked for 40 odd years, too, and just not amassed enough to give a big fat inheritance to their children.

Please stop with the implication that people who have assets are somehow more hardworking than those who don't.

People who have gone out to work for 40 odd years then have to sell their hard earned house whilst others in the same care home are getting a freebie.

This just seems bizarre tbh. I work because I need to pay for my living expenses, and so that I can enjoy my time away from work with experiences and possessions. Living expenses don’t magically stop being your responsibility once you get to old age.

In the main people with assets have accumulated them by getting others to work for them, for instance the landlord who has been able to accumulate multiple properties because of a loosely regulated housing market is able to force those priced out of the housing market (in part by said landlords) to work to pay off his or her mortgages