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?

What frustrated me when looking for a home for my Mum was that, whereas everything else is reviewed to death these days, it was very hard to find reviews for care homes. As for the CQC reports they are a joke. The one for the home she is currently in (temporary move due to refurbishments) bears no relation to reality where the catering is concerned. You really are left with personal recommendations as the only remotely reliable guidance.

As a tax payer I am completely happy to pay higher taxes to ensure that all older people get the care they need when they get to a stage they need it.

I am not prepared to pay 1p to protect someone's inheritance.

It's difficult when it feels like people are penalised for making good financial decisions. A relative of mine who was nt well off opted to struggle to pay extra to have a bigger pension. He did without a lot of things to do this. When the time came, everyone on a low income was given it anyway. He wasn't given his money back.

The only asset he had was an inexpensive flat. He had gone without throughout his life to buy it, but peers who had greater incomes than him who had chosen not to save got care funded while his flat had to be sold.

Unfortunately the lesson to the wider family from his experience has been not go bother saving. This is bad for the government, as they need savers to reduce the burden on the state. People will not save if it is all taken from them.

Also, derisory interest rates don't exactly encourage people to save.

exiledfromcornwall

I find this mentality really strange, though.

I don’t save because if I put a certain amount away I’ll get a percentage extra for free. I save because I’m putting MY money away to use later if I need to or want to, to give myself some financial security. Whether I have £4K sat in the bank that will be £4K in a decade’s time or whether I have £4K that’ll be more than £4K in a decade is irrelevant. It’s my responsibility to set my money aside for the future. People saying that poor interest rates disincentives them from saving always sounds like a bit of a cop out or poor excuse to me.

Now that people are getting 'wise' to this and with the squeeze on young people I think those with assets will be much cleverer with their money. My understanding is that currently you can gift as much money to your children as you like, you can buy them a house. As long as you outlive them for 7 years there is no CGT. Personally I don't want to live in a big house when I get older, I want a small house that is easy to maintain and keep warm. I will be selling up and passing the money on to my children. I won't be holding all my money in my assets for either the government or a private care home to take it.

The 7 year tax thing is different isn’t it to deprivation of assets - I’m not sure how strict they are on the latter.

I think councils can go back longer than seven years to recoup money if they feel you have deprived yourself of assets.

A problem (round here, at least) is that a small house is just as expensive as a large one! This seems odd, but the houses on the flat near the shops/doctor's/bus route etc command at least an equal price to larger family homes a bit further away. So downsizing isn't particularly beneficial financially.

Also, as someone upthread eloquently described, giving one's money away means... well, you've given it away. Most people are wary of leaving themselves in a vulnerable position, especially if the only big asset they have is their property.

Health care is free at point of use. We all pay in to the system. Old people have paid into the system.

Getting old happens to everyone. Is it really right that the aged are the ones who don't get help with end of life care?
They don't take your house off you to fund cancer treatment . You aren't means tested for antinatal care or anything else. Why penalise the old for inconveniently living too long.?

Why do people keep using the word penalise? Since when has paying your way and using your assets for your own benefit been penalisation? Why would I expect the working members of my family, who are considerably less well off than me, to pay for my care? Then expand that to cover the working population generally.

It’s completely wrong that I should expect someone on minimum wage to pay for my care when I have a mortgage free house and a decent pension income. It’s greedy and unjust to expect it.

Medical care is still free for the elderly. It's living in a care home that isn't.

Why do people keep using the word penalise? Since when has paying your way and using your assets for your own benefit been penalisation?

I don’t get this either.

Expecting the state to pay when you’ve assets of your own us like claiming benefits when you’ve a decent income.

Yet the same people would be up in arms about that.

Why penalize the old for living too long?
Indeed but should we keep people alive indefinitely just because we can, do we have the resources or the manpower to keep people alive indefinitely?
Care homes are very resource-intensive but no one really wants to do that for a living....what are we going to do when there are lots of old people who need 24-hour care but no one really wants to do that sort of work?
Stack them all up on shelves attached to tubes and computers?

For those saying that this is difficult, it’s really not. It disgusts me that people think it’s ok that someone who has never paid a penny in to the system ends up in the same position as someone who has been ‘responsible’.
I think it’s a disgrace that people are forced to sell their home to pay for care home fees. This would not happen if they had cancer or any other illness.
This disgusting government should start taxing their corporative friends and those with off shore trust funds.

It disgusts me that people think it’s ok that someone who has never paid a penny in to the system ends up in the same position as someone who has been ‘responsible’.

It disgusts me that people think people on low incomes with no hope of ever owning a house are expected to fund care for much richer people so they can pass their assets on to their children.

Why penalise the old for inconveniently living too long.?

Because there are too many of us. That's right - us . It's not the 90-year-olds, or even 80-year-olds, it's the millions trooping along behind. My fil was retired 36 years. 36 years of receiving a public sector pension and a state pension. 36 years of extensive NHS treatment. Now imagine the many millions of 50 and 60-somethings there are now, all expecting similar.

And I was reading an article the other week which stated that it's perfectly possible now to live until 130 years old and many more people will achieve this. But the last 30 at least will be with hardly any brain function.

I also read that the aged will bankrupt the Western world. Young people will have to be taxed at 200% to pay for their grandparents, great-grandparents and great-great grandparents to be sitting in care homes.

The reason my OH's AA has stopped is because SSD are temporarily making a very tiny contribution to his care so he is therefore deemed not to be self-funding.

He is not being penalised for being old |(he isn't very old - everyone around him in the NH is 10 or 20 years older than him) but for being ill. I distresses me greatly that having the misfortune to have a neuro-degenerative disease is compounded by massive financial burdens that mean our home will have to be sold.

Whist I can understand that people are concerned about how this care might be funded, I can just tell you that from the coal face it is hugely upsetting. If the system for CHC funding were fair and objective then I could just about cope - but it is a total lottery. And the person sitting making these decision about our futures is the person who works for the department that is trying to avoid paying - how is this objective and fair?

we may have the technology to keep people alive but that doesnt mean that doing so it the best use of resources
if a treatment or cure for a health problem exists we all quite naturally want it for ourselves or our loved one, but if there isnt enough for everyone how should we decide who is helped and who isnt?

It is ludicrous, Mishappening.

We appealed mil's care costs and got through to the final stage, only for it to be denied by a panel behind closed doors who - you're quite right - are being paid to save care costs.

I agree with so many on this thread. It's awful that dementia and other such diseases are treated so differently and this is not common knowledge till it happens to you or a loved one etc not to mention the C HC scandals. Something needs to be done , or at least reviewed.

It’s bloody awful @Mishappening. I really feel for you, it’s scandalous.

The80sweregreat What do you mean by "the CHC scandals?"

Just how hard it is for people to qualify for C HC really.
That's what I meant. Plus how hard it is to get. Not made easy for people etc.
I know why it's like this, but seems a bit unfair :

I believe it sets the complete wrong message- don’t work hard, don’t earn anything and you will be fine in old age.

Whilst the majority of the population who work hard, get taxed at every corner then need to pay for their care.

Working people have been the main contributors to the tax system and they then cannot get to use it when they need it the most.

I would prefer to be taken to dignitas in my old age and my family inherit my money, but wait...they will have to pay 50% of my estate to the taxman...it’s just wrong!

It disgusts me that people think people on low incomes with no hope of ever owning a house are expected to fund care for much richer people so they can pass their assets on to their children.

They don’t - the people on low incomes are net beneficiaries of the welfare state; not net contributors!

All this - “I don’t see why I should fund other people’s care....?”; the net contributors have to fund education for children, while they may have no children; have to fund the NHS while they may be in good health; or have to fund the emergency services when they never commit a crime; so why is it they are expected to pay tax for other people’s benefits, but you all complain that the progressive tax system should stop short at care for people with dementia?