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?

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

I agree with you on this.

@StartsAtTheMeadow yes I think that's the reasoning. He wasnr at a lock in facility. He was at first then moved to a care home. He wasnt physically fit enough to leave on his own, but many of the other residents came and went.

He wasnr locked in as such. Yet other people with the same condition couldnt would have had to pay. It's only because grandad got aggressive with a neighbour, who called the police, that he was sectioned. Had that one incident not happened he would have had to self fund. It's all very odd.

Bloke23, but how would you justify receiving your large, unearned windfall to someone paying the tax to fund your parents care? There isn't enough money for the elderly to not contribute toward their care, the tax they paid isn't enough with people living so much longer. My dad retired at 63 so could easily be retired for a 25 years, if he has to spend 5 of them in a care home there's no way he will have 'covered the costs' so to speak.

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

Imho we're going to end up going there before too long. Not full on Logan's Run but a legalisation of assisted dying.

Of course there would then be the danger of people with long term conditions feeling lile they had to take the euthanasia route in order to leave their family any £.

The ONLY reason that I, having brought up five children as a single mum, am now in a position to buy my own house (at 59) is because my mum left me enough money to do so. She died (with dementia) in her own home, because my brother and his wife lived there too and provided care.

If she had gone into a home, I would be looking at a very bleak future of trying to rent on a pension. And, presumably, having to access benefits to help me to cover the rent, whilst working well past the age of being capable of work.

No easy answers, sadly.

My FIL has sold his home to pay for care home fees. This was his choice as he did not want care in the home, he wanted someone to look after him and feed him. We see this as him making another choice of his own as an adult. He does get a small proportion of the fees paid by the LA. I think it is fine.

I agree with you.

The only people who really wind me up are those who make no provision at all throughout their adult life and then at age 75 or whatever try to pull on the heartstrings of the public with lines like ‘No-one should have to sell their home to pay for their care in old age’.

Internally I think ‘No indeed! They should have considered living within their means and saving when they had the chance.’

I realise that some people cannot save even assuming they can exist living within their means - this is who the state provided care should be going to. There are many people who could save, but blow it up the wall on material things.

My mum spent a year on a care home with dementia. It cost her just short of £40k. I don’t begrudge it her at all although it would have been a great addition to the inheritance. However, had she had terminal cancer, the NHS would have picked up the bill. The unfair issue is the social/medical diagnosis.

Bloke23 do your parents still live in their house? If so, then I think that would fall within deprivation of assets, as the whole reason they have done that is to avoid care fees.

I think I agree mostly with your friend, but of course, it's complicated.

Basic needs being met, like having a place in a care home should you need it, is something that I feel the state should pay for. It seems unfair to me that in many cases, people who self fund and people who are state funded get exactly the same care, but as everyone deserves a good standard of care I don't know what could be done to make it fairer.

People who have made the effort to leave an inheritance for their children should be able to do so. It's not a luxury anymore, it's what people need to even be able to afford a basic house of their own to live in a lot of the time. If people couldn't get that leg up from their parents, they would create a burden on the state in a different way, so it's all relative. I'd rather families were self sufficient as long as they are healthy, and then have the state support them when they're not instead of the state having to support healthy working age people as it so often has to now.

I think the crux of the issue is that families can no longer look after their elderly parents. That would be the best situation.

Also some people are very good at hiding their assets.

I don't think it is fair at all.

I suppose having wealth may buy more choice whereas the person depending on the state may have no choice in which home they are allocated?

Nationalise the Care Homes - then if you want ‘above the norm’ you pay more
People who have worked all their life and saved (and paid higher taxes as a result) will shift their assets before death to their loved ones if it is likely they have to pay for their own care in old age while others don’t have to. The incentive to work hard and save shouldn’t be eroded!

However, had she had terminal cancer, the NHS would have picked up the bill

So are you saying that they should have picked up the bill in your mums case?

Where’s the funding coming from? The NHS can’t afford the services it currently offers. How would it cover something as costly as this?

Also has anyone mentioned the current situation where by the government doesn't actually pay enough for the residents that need care who can't self fund?

So to make ends meet the care homes have to take a mix of residents. Effectively the self funding ones are subsiding the others. Now that really isnt fair.

As for the main point I think over all we should self fund but perhaps we could have a government backed insurance scheme we could pay into? After all the fear isnt just about children not being able to inherit. What about a surviving spouse being left in poverty?

Well I think the only way to stop this is if more families started taking care of their own like they used to... Not easy I know. Easier said than done. But that's what we used to do and what many people in other countries still do. Only in the western world do we stick people in care homes. Some do need it for medical care or no family etc. But those who are worried about their inheritance could look after their parents...

People who have made the effort to leave an inheritance for their children should be able to do so

Why though?

Why should baby boomers get long retirement periods and their assets ring fenced so they can pass on. It’s not doable. Sorry.

The money needs to come from somewhere. So what you’re saying is that young people need to pay even more tax to cover this care. That isn’t fair.

@EugenesAxe - but assume that would work both ways. Those who own their own homes should save up an amount but those who don't own should do the same. Saying that, care is so expensive it's unobtainable for most, even if your were fortunate enough to save up £100,000 it's not enough for two years care in most cases.

Or if there was a way the NHS could use funds they would use on care home placements, use the funds to help families to look after the elderly relative instead

Surely it should be a sliding scale? So millionaires pay 100% to destitute paying 0% and everyone one else in between contributing a certain % of care home costs depending on their income or assets.

The government should pay the remaining % up to a cap. Right now those who pay are subsidising those who do not because the government isn’t paying enough money to cover the costs. So even millionaires should not be paying more than the actual costs of their care.

Employers should pay higher NI taxes to fund social care just like they have to contribute to pensions.

I suppose the advantage of paying for your care is that you can pick your own home and take advantage of better facilities.

But the rules about who qualifies for free care for medical need don’t always seem to be fairly applied. I’m sure there could be a fairer or better system for providing quality care.

I think the crux of the issue is that families can no longer look after their elderly parents. That would be the best situation.

In most cases they do what they can. We live in a time where lots if families have 2 working parents.

People also move round more, usually for work opportunities so dont live on their families doorstep.

I live in an ex mining town. People used to live and work here, generations of their families lived here and people could easily live on one wage.

It's not that way anymore

You are opening a can of worms with this question.

The problem comes down to referring to the fact that 'those on benefits' catches too wide a group of people, some of which abuse the system some of which don't

It covers people that have genuinely fallen on hardship in life or can't work due to serious health problems etc. However, it also covers the many people in this country that can't be arsed to work yet have that self entitled attitude. There is nothing wrong with them yet they do nothing to attempt to gain work and happily take all the benefits they can and sit on their arses all day watching tv/smoking/drinking. And yes I know that is a WILD generalisation but it does happen a lot and I witness it myself. It also covers the category of people referred to above that think it is their right to have as many children as they want despite not being able to afford them.

So....do I think I should have to pay for my care costs over and above the first category of people on benefits ie those that genuinely haven't been able to work/contribute to society - absolutely yes, I should.

Do I think I should have to pay for my care home costs over and above the second two categories of people - ABSOLUTELY NOT!

So are you saying that they should have picked up the bill in your mums case?

Not at all. I think houses should be sold to pay for care. But the diagnosis can determine whether or not this is necessary. That is unfair.

I suppose the advantage of paying for your care is that you can pick your own home and take advantage of better facilities.

Not really. Not all care homes can deal with every person. You carr needs impact this alot. Even when you are paying.

In an area without lots if care choices. Even when paying there may not be a choice.