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?

Webuilt- no, I think everyone should pay for some of their care in old age not any care they have up to old age. Only when they need to go into a care home or similar.

I don't think people who have assets/inheritance to pass down to children should have their care totally funded by others so they can pass it down but at the same time I don't think people who have worked hard all their lives to get assets/inheritance to pass down should be penalised for that. In the long run they could be saving the state money if they pay towards their own care as inheritance is passed down again and again to cover this. If this is taken away perhaps they will end up in stated funded care.

I think it should be means tested though so the more you have the more you pay, so some care in covered but not all money is taken my the state. Those who are super rich and would have millions to pass down even if they did pay for their own care should pay 100%

This is something DH and I discuss regularly and we try to plan for the future. As DH dad will be heading this way in the next 10/15 years. We are conscious that we are his only family so it will down to us to make any decisions about his care and potentially pay for it. He has a house with no mortgage and some savings we think- totally unsure of the amount. Unsure what his pension is like too.

We think about what will happen if this money runs out, which it will do quickly if he goes into a care home that's nice. We are conscious that we could end up paying £000's for him if this happens. We wouldn't allow him to potentially go into some terrible home if it's state funded. But at the same time we wouldn't be able to afford to top up the bill too much ourselves.

We ask ourselves how much would we be willing to pay? As it would mean a sacrifice on our own lifestyle, any inheritance we have already been passed down, savings and any potential inheritance we want to leave to our children. It's a dilemma we talk about a lot.

Further up the thread, someone said the 7 years thing doesn't apply to carehome fees, just inheritance tax and signing over the house wouldn't work. Is it different in different parts of the UK? Not that I'm planning to.

Local authorities can go back much further than seven years and increasingly will as more people need care. And if you’re still living in the house and not paying your children a market rent - which is taxable - the whole arrangement will be null and void.

Maybe a lot of houses need to slump to the 10/ 15 k Mark across the board! children could buy their own property then , even the ones on min wages and the smug ' my house is worth 500 k without me doing much' would soon make people focus their minds a bit!
It Will never happen ( as a lot of the things I think are a good idea won't I am a dreamer) as it's ' not fair' but neither is it fair that some kids will gain thousands from granny / grandad or mum and dad and many won't get a bean! Esp if it's swallowed up by care instead.,
Make care homes a bit more affordable ( not sure how , as running costs are huge) or have a whole building programme for retirement flats or homes with wardens.
I know it's all pie in the sky of course. If only I'd realised how bricks and mortar was so lucrative back in my day , but I hadn't a clue.
My dh and I had parents who always rented council properties for affordable rents and if you owned a property you really were rich in my dad's day!
We also need council properties but that isn't a priority for any governments or Ive not heard it mentioned much.
Sorry for my rants!

We are obsessed with means testing in this country, penalising anyone who dares to earn a bit too much, taxing them more, but then denying them the privileges that tax pays for. I think I need to move to a Scandinavian country where the tax is high but everyone benefits whatever they earn.

^I agree with this

Greater inequality in the UK in part of that issue pp

Also people say tax everyone more there is a limit when people do say I’m not paying that much tax and leave or find ways to avoid it

I think it is unfair that some people have to pay a lot more than others just through chance. I think there should be a large element of social insurance here, just as there is for health care, unemployment benefit etc. so the costs are shared more equally.

As in all cases, I think that the wealthy should pay more towards those social costs. But they should do so through some combination of higher income/wealth/inheritance tax rather than through a direct charge to those who need the services. I am actually in favour of significantly higher inheritance tax for example.

Perhaps people should be able to choose to pay extra for more luxurious care. But a good standard of care in later life should be available to all at no direct cost. Including a much more joined up approach to providing care in the home where that is appropriate.

There is a lot of inequality , but again it's not addressed.

Webuilt- no, I think everyone should pay for some of their care in old age not any care they have up to old age. Only when they need to go into a care home or similar.

You make some very good points, mummyrocks1, but most people end up NOT needing to go into a care home, so there's a lot of inequality there, depending on the luck of the health draw as to whether you get dementia or similar or not.

Plenty of older folk want to go into sheltered/warden-assisted housing as they get older and their mobility decreases, for company and security, maybe - or they might just want to hand over the more mundane aspects and concerns of life to somebody else and get on with enjoying the nicer bits in their later years.

In such scenarios, there's a very good case to say that, if their children want an inheritance, there are many things they could do to help their parents as an alternative to them moving to communal accommodation e.g. let them move in with them or in a granny flat, or actively take over a lot of their chores and life admin for them.

For somebody with full-blown dementia needing 24/7 professional care (and who could be dangerous/frightening if young children live there too), that just isn't an option.

Having said that, a lot of warden-assisted flats can actually be purchased (as long as the buyer meets their credentials), so it might just be a matter of selling your old house and buying the new flat, which then remains an asset that you own and can pass on to your family.

Also, they cost a bit extra to reflect the services that you get with them, but they aren't an automatic way of guaranteeing that all of your money will be gone in no time, as with full care homes - even if you can't outright buy your accommodation, they're likely to deplete a reasonable chunk of your money/assets, but they won't tend to drain the entire lot in a matter of months.

I think it is unfair that some people have to pay a lot more than others just through chance. I think there should be a large element of social insurance here, just as there is for health care, unemployment benefit etc. so the costs are shared more equally.

100% with you there.

There should always be the full opportunity for those who can and want to to work harder in order to have nicer WANTS and luxuries in life, but chance shouldn't be a reason for people to be left out in the cold for their own basic NEEDS.

There is a big difference between the ones that pay and don't in a care home.
The ones who got free care in the home I worked at were on the top floor and some had to share their room, which are a 1/3 of the size.
Also the paying clients have more choice in the style of their room, have additional furniture and their belongs.

I do not think it is unfair for us to pay towards are in a NH, as I am doing for my OH. His pensions would be going towards his keep if he were at home and it is entirely reasonable that a proportion of that should also go to his keep in a NH.

However, that is not the problem. What is is the fact that in order to get a decent civilised existence in a NH, you need to pay way way over the top limit that SSD will contribute towards this. Their finances have not caught up with the real costs.

This means that I have to find a "top-up" which comes to about £900 a week (his pensions contributions of about £240 + the rest from savings - his savings are now gone, so I am paying out of mine).

If he were single or widowed and the house was empty, then it would need to be sold to pay that top-up; and I do not have a problem with that - it is part of his assets of which he has no need.

The problem is that I am still alive! - and need somewhere to live, so the house cannot be sold to pay for the care. I have to find this huge top-up amount somehow - at the moment I can probably manage about 9 months from savings, but during that time I will either have to be trying to sell the property and find somewhere else to live; or else raise some cash on the equity.

I do find this unacceptable - I am distressed by my OH's sorry state, and guilty that care at home was a total failure and I do not need to be making these huge financial decisions and potential upheavals at such a time.

Payments from LA need to keep up with real costs. The max they will pay for a NH is £573 - find me a decent NH that costs so little.

If it can be proved beyond doubt that someone has cancer or heart disease or other organ cancers through lifestyles choices alone then they shd pay the same or some as someone with dementia. Hard to prove I suppose, but would make things a bit fairer. I know this is not the case for all cancer sufferers of course , but it's really not fair that dementia / Alzheimer's sufferers are treated so differently and end up paying for all their care for what could be a long time! ( hence the reason they are treated differently)
( don't wish ill health of any kind on people by the way. ! )
I see it as a 'cancer of the brain. ' HCP's and governments think otherwise! Wonder why?
..

For starters, yes sign over the house in your 50s and gift the money, your children don't need to be responsible because you can and control it. If you don't forward plan that's your own fault. Most of the residents in my care home will be in care from 80 to 90 onwards, they have already distributed their funds at that point or chose to keep them. It's not naieve its reality.

Fowles, surely the councils and governments are on to this though?
They soon will be as the care bills go up and up and a quick look at zoopla provides a lot of info on houses and the prices they were purchased for and are worth , all for free! (It's an estimate but mostly not far from the actual values)
It's probably all legal now, but soon won't be that easy in a few years time I bet!

@The80sweregreat yeah still all legal atm but like everything else they will put a stop to it. They've already increased it to 7 years from 3 years. Especially now it's all private care homes in Wales, it's a lot dearer than LA. I don't know about England but all nursing residents are funded regardless of finance.

Nursing homes are funded I believe.

My FIL is in a nursing home. He funds his own care.

The80sweregreat

England : nursing homes are not fully funded. The nhs will pay an element toward nursing care. It’s very hard to get and only under incredibly strict circumstances.

halloweenismyseason

The surrounding in which some one resides eg their bedroom is different. But the actual care provide should never differ.
Much like a hotel - you pay more for a suite than you do for single room - but your cleanliness and food is of the same standards.

I will have to start saving hard for my old age then! Such a lottery isn't it?

The environment really matters though doesn’t it the difference between an airy room, garden view or none of that. The food though, that could be better if you pay. Not saying it is but that’s something a place could offer.

The80sweregreat yeah still all legal atm but like everything else they will put a stop to it.

It isn’t legal. It’s deprivation of assets and local authorities are very keen to crack down on it. I think I’ve said about three times that anyone who continues to live in a house “owned” by their adult children must pay market rent or the whole arrangement is illegal. And those adult children must pay tax on it. That loophole has gone. Quite rightly.

The80sweregreat - nursing homes are NOT funded - trust me - I know!!!