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?

Most elderly choose to stay at home now. Prices for care homes are extortionate and its hard to trust them as theres so much negative press. Savvy pensioners transfer the costs way before they would need their income assessed. Its a system savvy people know how to abuse.

The current system not only requires people to pay for their own care, but to subsidise the care of people who rely on the state. My parents are in a private care home in a borough that has no state homes left. Their fees are combined £10k per month. The state only covers minimum wage staff costs for its residents, not overheads. So my parents’ fees also contribute to the overheads of those who are relying on the state.

This is essentially a form of taxation that only affects people who are ill and have no earning capacity.

Meanwhile, the care home pays out dividends to its shareholders. The carers are paid a pittance to keep profits high. Everyone who works there, from the managing director down, knows that the system is unfair. They all say that they are not saving for their old age and are spending all their money now.

In my opinion, care homes should be nationalised and run on a not for profit basis so that any surplus can be reinvested in training and resources. There is no place for profit in a system of care. In terms of who should pay - you either have a system in which people can accumulate private wealth and pass it down to whomever they choose (in which case a bad luck lottery that wipes out all your work breaks the system) or you have a system in which nobody accumulates private wealth and relies on state run services. Either way, for one of these systems to work we need higher taxation, a greater understanding and acceptance of the people who need care (no more jokes about dignitas please - very distressing for those of us caring for deeply loved terminally ill people who we don’t want to die) , and for profit to be nowhere near vulnerable people.

beanbag but what's the alternative? Poor pensioners just, what? Have to die in a poor house/their beds? Or the young have to fund it through higher taxes, austerity has already squeezed the young more than the old and with people living longer there just isn't the money to go around. How would you feel as a 20 something year old on an aaverage income with basically no chance of ever owning a home, having your taxes substantiality raised to fund the care of a pensioner with a £300k asset?

I think we should try and move away from the idea of inheritance, it's something that traditionally only a very few benefited from and it's one of the main ways that injustice and unfairness has been perpetuated through history. So I'd be in favour of property reverting to the state on death, with a capped amount transferable to the next of kin if the deceased wished it.

I accept that the state cannot afford to fund free care for everyone.
However, I think it is very unfair that self funders heavily subsidise those who are state funded.
My dad was in a care home, self funding, and he was allowed £10 per week to spend on personal things like birthday cards, sweets, newspapers. We bought his clothes, toiletries, treats etc.
His clothes, shoes, slippers, treats etc all went missing frequently and had to be replaced. By us, at our own expense.
It costs a self funder about £1000 per week for a basic room in a care home in London, for not very good care. The staff are on minimum wage.
The LA pays around £500 per week for the state funded person.
Where does the money go?

Do people realise that you don't get the same care when social are paying for it?

I work for a care home company, some of our homes charge £4000 per week for a room, some charge £2000 per week for a room, and the social care residents share a very basic room with another resident for nothing.

I know which room I want to be in.

Most self funders are in the same care homes as state funded residents.
Private care homes are only affordable for the mega rich.

I just don’t understand the obsession with inheritance. We’re not all landed gentry. Being able to buy a home is useful when it comes to retirement as you can live rent-free but then surely the biggest advantage is you can sell and downsize then eventually sell it all for cash for care or your funeral.
My parents have already sold our family home for a small flat (early 70s) and I fully expect them to spend all their money before they die. I expect to do the same. The only exception being if I’d had a child who would need lifelong care themselves.

So I'd be in favour of property reverting to the state on death, with a capped amount transferable to the next of kin if the deceased wished it.

In which all housing should be provided by the government and everyone pay standard rent.

Who would buy a house, save the deposit pay for the up keep, for the house to be turned over to the state.

You either own something and give it to who you want upon death. Or you borrow it and pay for its use while you have it.

You cant have it both ways. I cant imagine that system would work. What what would the impact be on banks if no one needs to borrow money for houses?

I mean I am all for the government giving me my equity back and I wi pay them rent to live here permanently and then they can pay for the upkeep. Would suit me fine.

My parents and my PIL were all self funding, all in the same care homes as state funded residents, no difference in care or facilities at all.

Had experience of this recently. Family member had to sell tgeir mother's cherished home for almost half of what it was originally valued at because first sale fell through costing family masses in legal fees for something that was out of their hands then money they were having to pay out while the slooooow house selling process lingered on and the new buyer finding they could keep knocking off thousands because the owner was needing the money to pay bills the daughter was struggling to keep up. So the inheritance went to total strangers ie the ones who got the house at a knock down price . Someone else benefitted from their family having a lovely home aling with the fact that the mother and family had to struggle to fund the care home fees and now there is even less in the pot for paying the fees. They're hoping she won't know what the worries are soon!

I think it's unfair that if you have dementia or Parkinsons you have to pay for your care and if you have cancer you don't.

And I don't think all your savings bar £23K or whatever the limit is now should be taken - maybe half.

But this issue wouldn't arise if people didn't save everything up to leave to their kids. I realise some people's only asset is the house they live in, but in so many other cases people leave the money in the bank and say their kids will get it when they die. If you started giving money to your kids/grandkids/other people you'd like to help earlier on, you could pass on a lot more of the money to the people you want to have it, rather than care home companies. It's not deprivation of assets if you give your children a small amount every year for many years.

Slightly off at a tangent but I saw this week that the military charities are swimming in money. If your parent/grandparent is a veteran and needs care, it might be worth talking to the charities to see if they can help. I'm guessing that again if you have assets to pay for care they won't, but it might be worth exploring.

Do people realise that you don't get the same care when social are paying for it?

Sorry but a lot of them are. Exh uses to work for a care home company. Not one for the mega rich.self funders and state funders were in the same homes, same private rooms etc.

Same with my grandad. Local one. I knew several people with relatives in the same one. Mixture of self funding and state funded. They all had the same.

My parents paid there mortgage off when they where 51, there attitude was they worked bloody hard to pay it off and they wanted me and my brother to benefit from it, so they signed the house over to me and my brother, so when by law own the house now

Ironically old age pensions are one of the largest portions of government spending already.

Hardly ironic. It is something that everyone has paid into over their working lives for themelves and others. It is not an unknown cost, not unexpected and the people who rely on them have every right to recieve them.

And yet we now have compulsory private pensions.... which will probably work out better if only the government enforces the ringfencing on businesses as it couldn't for itself!

The world is changing. The way we pay into and expect to get suport out of the welfare state is changing. It is not at all clear and yest we are slowly moving towards a less welfare frame of mind.

If you want to imagine what that will be like and don't want to use America as a model have a look at say, Spain...

I think it's unfair that if you have dementia or Parkinsons you have to pay for your care and if you have cancer you don't

Sometimes they dont. My grandad had state funded care because he was detained under the mental health act. He own a small house but was state funded.

But yes, the majority of the time its the illness (in reality) that decides whether you are paying or not.

care homes should be nationalised and run on a not for profit basis so that any surplus can be reinvested in training and resources. There is no place for profit in a system of care

Couldn't agree with this more.

A lot of people don’t go into care, neither of my parents did, my mother died because doctors would not listen to her, not U.K., my father had Parkinson’s and other things and died in his home.

I think from seeing other relations that some people are kept alive for the sake of it when they have no quality of life, but no one is going to go there

effectively had ‘hand outs’ their entire life, could end up in the same care home as my parents

The benefit of paying yourself is that when the time comes all you need is a room available and you can move into the car home.

No need to wait for assessments by social services, delays, discussions. It might not seem fair but it is a blessing. And, if you have found a home where the LA will cover the cost, there is the safety net that you will be paid for once you are down to some £25k.

No need to ever worry about running out of funds.

The whole concept of inheritance contributes significantly to inequality. How about abolishing income tax in favour of an inheritance tax that means people gave max £25k to pass on?

Why should one of my grandmothers get free NHS care as she has cancer and my other grandmother who has dementia have to pay for her care?

And, obviously, as dementia prohibits her from getting her to her own assessments (to approve that she does indeed need a care home or that carers are needed, because obviously someone who meets her for 10 minutes is more aware of her needs that her family who cares for her 24/7), masses of form filling etc etc the family have to facilitate this at their own cost and time.
Grandma with cancer gets masses of help and support, cancer charities help her and respite care is free. And she can see how unfair it is for grandma with dementia.
I'm not going to go on too much but surely this is not right???

In care home yes there is a difference in what you get. I used to be a community carer and it didnt matter who was picking up the bill you got me. We knew who was paying and who wasnt but it didnt make any difference to the level of personal care they got from me.
Imho it doesn't matter about the setting it's the people caring for you.
Highering carers wages would get more people in who were just there for the money so the standard of care wouldn't improve.
I don't know what the answer is. More people are living longer and require more care.

Sometimes they dont. My grandad had state funded care because he was detained under the mental health act. He own a small house but was state funded

I also had a relative who was funded by the state despite having assets. She was detained due to dementia and in a locked facility. I think the reasoning was that if not there she would have had to be in hospital permanently which is even more expensive.

My mother's dementia care fees so far are £160k for 2 years care - we're in the SE so fees are high. However it's a not for profit company & they don't take LA funded residents so the money my mother pays is for her care and her care alone. She was a higher-rate tax payer for the last 25yrs of her working life & still pays some tax on her pension.
She's likely to be around for quite a while so we're taking out an insurance policy meaning that her fees get paid until death so there's no chance of the money running out.

The other care homes in the area are only £1k a month cheaper however they are mostly definitely for profit and there are a lot of LA funded residents so she would be subsidising their care & lining the pockets of the owners. They are waiting rooms for death and horrendous places to be. Some of them you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy.

I think all estates should be charged inheritance tax at 10-15% & this should be ringfenced for elderly care.
All care homes should be either LA run or not for profit if private.
EVERY person requiring care should be given a fixed weekly amount.
At the moment LA residents are given £600 a week by the council but if you are self-funding you receive nothing.
It could be lowered to £400/week and everyone would receive it.
LA funded residents go into LA funded homes.
If as a self-funder, you choose to top this payment up to move into a not for profit private home then you can.
Seems much fairer to me.

And for all those people that say I should be looking after her at home?? She was 73 when diagnosed 4 years ago. She is still physically healthy. She is 6 inches taller than me and her dementia makes her aggressive. As sole carer, I got fed up of being assaulted. If I lose my inheritance than so be it - at least I won't get another broken arm.

I think it's unfair that if you have dementia or Parkinsons you have to pay for your care and if you have cancer you don't.

Well life’s not ‘fair’ 🤷‍♀️

This goes back to the origins of the NHS and what it was set up to do. No, dementia wasn’t in its original remit. Rather than just assume the nhs should cover everything, we need to have a national conversation about its role and how it should be funded. I see very little willingness to do this.

I agree that we have to move away from the expectation of large inheritances. The world has moved on, people living longer, retirement periods longer. There are no magic money trees.

Unless we want to consider higher taxes and a Scandinavian style economic model. I see little appetite for that either.

Maybe the simplest solution is to increase taxes - and fund social care through the taxes?
And I know certain rich pensioners who would opt for funding their own care (just like people opt for private schools).