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 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.

This is definitely the only way of addressing inequality plus we can't keep expecting the younger shrinking tax paying population to fund everything. The problem is so many people are only able to get on the ladder due to inheritance so voters won't vote for it.

I like the idea that KenDodd mentioned. It ensures the risk is shared socially and isn't down to individual misfortune. It is also better than a fixed cap which disprportionately punishes people who aren't wealthy but aren't completely skint. Politicians could usefully read this thread as there are useful ideas suggested.

@Tessabelle74 no, I'm a homeowner with 3 children, who is happy to use my assets to pay for my care when I need to, just as I'd see my parents homes as assets we may have to realise as and when. I stand by my position that inheritance is a way of perpetuating inequality, if we've got to the point where we think other people should pay for complex health care because a house somehow isn't an acceptable asset to use.

If your idea was to work then the government would have to house us all in funded houses, but oh dear, they sold them all!

No, people should try to own property if they can, even if they can't pass the full amount on in death, because:

1. a mortgage is cheaper than private rent
2. I have a wider choice of properties and areas
3. it frees up council property for people needier than me
4. I can adjust and decorate how I like
5. it's an investment which I may need later in life

The thing I'd do differently is set a cap so that the max amount you could inherit would be the same for everyone. I'd see the vast majority of people passing most of their wealth on, but the very richest would not be allowed to concentrate wealth between generations any more.

@Barbie222
I've worked hard since I was 17 for my assets to benefit my children. I'd happily pay for my care if needed if everyone had to. What I have a problem with is those that have never paid in to the system, and have no assets to get that same care for free. Maybe we should ALL have to get insurance to pay for care homes, that way everyone contributes. If you don't use it, bonus, the government gets to put it into the NHS pot

But is it the same care for free?

The younger generation won't be able to afford to buy a house in London or the south east! I know it makes sense rather than renting but for some it really isn't going to happen. I know this thread isn't about all that but it's a reality.

@Tessabelle74 you need to separate people who haven’t paid in to the system and people who have nothing to contribute!! These views are so ignorant if you actually understand the benefit system very very few people can go through they’re whole lives on benefits, as it stands once a child turns 3 people have to look for work. Also plenty of people work very hard, earn very good incomes but will never get on the housing ladder, what will they have to contribute?

It’s also very entitled to think someone with nothing shouldn’t receive any help. Whilst someone with a house to sell and money in savings should receive benefits, which is what you’d be receiving. Where’s the logic ?

The80s you’re right fewer will win houses to use for care, higher proportion of population will be older.

However bad people feel it is now it will get worse. Unless people start thinking ahead with solutions, if they exist.

Own not win

The younger generation won't be able to afford to buy a house in London or the south east! I know it makes sense rather than renting but for some it really isn't going to happen. I know this thread isn't about all that but it's a reality.

This is so true. My children, one a teacher the other still at uni, won't be able to afford to buy a house here without the inheritance that they will get from their grandparents. If that money is used to.pay for care homes then my kids will likely rent for the rest of their lives. I fully intend to care for my parents at home because that is what they want and have made me promise. We can spend their money buying in care if we need it but it won't cost anywhere near the £1000/week that a care home costs.

I hope it works out caring for your elderly parents. I admire you. I couldn't do it as my home is small and I have older kids at home too : my siblings wives were not willing to have my elderly dad which is fair enough. We all have to work.
A lot of people don't get on with their parents too ; I know I wouldn't have cared for my in laws.
I know that some people do believe that kids should care for parents but it's not always possible. Hence the need for care homes. I hate the thought that my children will have to go through all this one day.
No easy answers to living longer.

I fully intend to care for my parents at home because that is what they want and have made me promise. We can spend their money buying in care if we need it but it won't cost anywhere near the £1000/week that a care home costs.

Yes, ten years ago I’d probably have said the same thing. Then the theory became reality and, after a two year stint which brought me to my knees, the relief of handing it over to a care home was indescribable. 24 hour care, wherever it’s provided costs a lot of money and is impossible for one person to provide, if only because we all need sleep.

The80sweregreat

My children are adults and I would move into my parents home. I only work part time so my intention is to give up work and rent out my house to get some income.

Alsohuman

I'm a nurse so.i understand exactly what is entailed. I'm also not about to hand over the care of my parents to someone who may, or may not, do as good a job as I can.

I get the point about not being able to do 24 hour care. I realise that and if that became necessary I would hire in help but it would be staff of my choosing, under my supervision and it wouldn't cost £1000/week.

It is admirable that people want to care for their loved ones but dad's care home is full of elderly people who were with their children but it became too much!
Dementia has many forms and is difficult to deal with. My dad wandering off all the time was a real worry. You wouldn't have any kind of life for yourselves but I understand that not everyone feels this way and are willing to devote their lives to their parents!
I do admire them.

I understand that. I've made a promise and I will ensure that they stay in their own home because that's what they both want.

If nothing else, I'll use the money in their estate to pay for care at home rather than use the money to.put them in a home where they don't want to be.

I would love to win the lottery and be able to have dad with me with carers coming in etc.
Will never happen of course.
It's such a shame that care homes are so much money and people find themselves in such bad dilemmas as we age. A bit depressing really ! I am dreading getting old.

I suppose I think a capped payments system is fairest. Can't vote either way how OP stated the ballot.

My DGM is in a nursing home.
She has worked hard all her life, running a business alone after she became a widow and raising 5 children on her own. She was generous towards us (grandchildren) but frugal to herself and would literally go to different shops to save a few pence. After being diagnosed with dementia, she quickly detoriated and for her own safety, she had to go to a nursing home. So her house was sold, with a lot of profit.

In my homecountry, the state will pay for the costs of the nursing home if you don’t have any money. If you do, you have to. So if DGM had allowed herself more luxury, holidays, nicer clothes, not going to 3 shops to get groceries and just pay a bit more but save time, etc. it would not have made a difference. The state would have paid for it if she hadn’t saved anything.

I appreciate that this is how the welfare state works but it does feel unfair if you compare her situation to people who lived like there was no tomorrow and haven’t saved a single penny. I am NOT talking about those who didn’t save because they could barely scrape by.

Scarfaceclaw21 I think probably a combination of B), C) and E) from your list.

I can see how that feels unfair, but what she did was make sensible choices to reward herself with stability and a safety net which speaking from someone who has literally been down to the last pound, is a much nicer feeling than having everything but could quite literally come unstuck snd end up in dire straits at any point. So it wasn’t for nothing, although it may feel like that. There is nothing stopping people from spending their money

@NC4this123

I understand what you mean, I just feel sad that she didn’t allow herself to enjoy life a bit more when she could. She is honestly the kindest person that I know who had a very hard life but was always thinking more about others and being sensible then making herself a bit more comfortable.

I think a cap on the amount any one individual should have to pay is the way to go, even if it was a big amount. That would make it much more attractive to insurers to come up with products to cater for it as they'd know what their biggest possible exposure was.

The cap is great but who makes up the short fall?

Pluck a figure, say £400k and the care is £900k where does the rest come from. Currently if you have that in an asset you pay for it in full. This would stop.

Higher tax, for whom, or something else

Taking a percentage from every estate in death, good too, would people bear that extra cost do you think? The cries of its not fair might get louder, you pay even if you don’t use it.

Not trying to run stuff down, just interested in how it would work