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 the way forward is right to die. There, now you don't need to spend years in a care home.

The money I have worked very hard for is for my kids, not an individual or organisation providing, at best, mediocre care and exploiting low paid workers.

DH and I fully intend to downsize and pass on our assets to our kids on an ongoing basis as we get older.

I think the UK will legalise assisted dying at some stage too: otherwise the system is just going to break.

@StartsAtTheMeadow

Yes yes. More tax out of estates. Everyone pays - say - 2% of an estate over £50000 before any exemptions. Why are we always so resistant to paying tax?

I would increase the personal allowance immediately to £15000 and raise the rate by 2p.

The thing that annoys be about this issue is the idea that wealthier people are more 'hard-working' and therefore deserve better care or that they shouldn't pay any additional cost.

It would be interesting if an audit was done on these folk to see if they themselves weren't recipients of wills, free higher education, played the stock market, had a leg up from a council house starting out, benefitted from property sales when markets are good (which in unearned income), received child benefit etc. It would be interesting to see how many hours they did work and how they were supported by unpaid but still also hardworking members of their
own families/greater society to achieve this 'wealth' ....

Some people are born in privileged times and they fail to see how society around them supported them through acquiring all the things they have amassed.

One solution might be for people to take out insurance to cover care home costs should they ever need them.

Personally I would end my life at a time of my choosing rather than live in a care home -but at the moment we do not have that choice in this country.

However coming back to the OP- I think if you have accumulated enough wealth then you should pay rather than expect greater society to fund the care. If children want to inherit more then a choice might be for them to do the care work themselves.

I agree. The wealthiest people I know are in their 70’s . Of course they should pay for their care.

I'm in 2 minds here.

I do agree that ideally if you can afford to pay for care then you should but, you are going to have plenty of people who earned enough money to save for their retirement but who chose instead to live beyond their means and who spent every penny with nothing to show for it getting their care paid for them. Meanwhile someone else who lived carefully and invested and saved for retirement being made to give up that money and sell their house to fund care. That doesn't seem at all just.

Life and illness are unfair and we don't have a magic money pot.

Life and illness are unfair and we don't have a magic money pot.

Yes they are. Is it right that the government seek to make it more unfair?

I haven't read the full thread yet but does your friend realise that the people who get it for free, get it for free but because of that they don't really get any choices in their care or where they end up living etc (they should as everyone should but the reality is different) so some end up in the very bad care homes and have no recourse if their care isn't up to scratch

If you are contributing to your care your opinions are taken more seriously probably also because you are using your own funds you are likely more likely to speak up because you feel deserving of a choice.

Obviously I am talking in general terms and not every fits into this.

Unfair in what sense?

The government isn't a separate entity - we pay/contribute as a collective society.

The differentiation between health and social care is false. Going into a care home is not a choice it is generally because of ill health. The risk should not be individual but shared socially like other health risks. Richer pensioners should pay tax. Anecdotly my parents worked in a factory, paid into a pension scheme and bought a terraced house which sold for 70,000 three years ago. They paid for care. People with the same job with same pay in council accomodation and not having paid into the pension scheme got their rent paid in retirement then free home adaptations and care. Not exactly fair. Poorer owner occupiers can't afford house repairs etc. It is also pure chance who eventually needs care and who doesn't.

Seen the odd comment at the beginning of the thread in the opinion of ''I've worked hard all my life, why should I have to pay and other's don't?'' but just because someone owns a home and then someone doesn't own a home and gets their care paid for doesn't mean the non homeowner hasn't worked hard all their lives too!

I'd rather be euthanised than live in a care home with dementia. We need this as an option too.

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

That's the problem with all benefits, though, isnt it? Some people will take out far far more than they ever put in. Most people are a drain on society...

Friend is of the opinion that everyone who requires a care home should have it paid for by the government

How does your friend propose to fund this???? It costs upwards of £1000 per week to keep a person in a care home. What are her brilliant ideas to find this kind of money for the million people in the UK who have dementia?

Unfair in what sense?

Unfair in the sense that there should be a cost per resident, whether that person is funded by the LA or privately. Why should I have to pay more to part fund someone else too? The full cost should be met by the LA, not by other residents.

Unfair in the sense that if I've worked and saved, bought a house, paid AVAs into my pension and then need care why should I have to pay when my colleague has spent all of his money,paid only minimum into his pension, invested in a house but during retirement has repeatedly downsized to release equity which has then been spent but is now being cared for for free because he spent all of his savings?

How are those scenarios fair?

How are those scenarios fair?

But you're only honing in on the 'unfairness' that negatively affects you.

What about all the other stuff?

Is it fair that some get significant opportunities to do well economically and others don't?

That some get substantial windfalls along the way and others don't?

Some people's houses make a fortune for them as prices rise and others don't (or they never have an opportunity to buy)?

That some stay fit and healthy, keeping them in the workforce/paying into pensions and others don't?

Some die before retirement and others last to their 90s?

Some have family members who can provide care and others don't?

If you're trying to address 'unfairness' across the board, you'll be here a hell of a long time.

If you reach retirement with substantial assets to your name, you haven't had a bad lot in life, frankly.

The government have to fund it somehow. You can't have everything in life go entirely your way.

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

Totally agree with this and I think it'd actually create a fairer system too. I think we'd see a difference in care home fees if profit were eliminated from the equation in all honesty.
The whole system is unfair, I have worked in a few homes and we've had funded and self funded residents side by side, people with certain diagnosis who's fees are almost twice as much as others. One resident couldn't walk, talk eat independently etc, in a room next to a lady who was totally self sufficient, except for the cleaning/meals etc. They were cared for by the same people, with the same training, on the same wage. They received the same in terms of food/heating etc. There were some extra expenses for the inco equipment the bed bound resident needed - which often ran out, but they were paying almost twice the amount of the more independent resident. Yes, they may have cost more, but not twice as much. And the difference was pocketed by the company. That's what needs to stop.

@LaurieMarlow, your post makes me wish we had a like button.

I find it really bizarre the way people are so wedded to ‘inheritance’. Surely one of the benefits of buying a home and paying it off is that you have money available to you when you need to sell it so you can pay for care if you need it? Can’t imagine being so entitled as to think that if I own an asset worth thousands and thousands of pounds my care should be paid for by the state so that my kids can receive a house or a wodge of cash when I die, when as much as I love them they didn’t do anything to ‘earn’ that money compared to peers whose parents have nothing. I didn’t receive any inheritance when my mum died and nor did I expect to. If you are fortunate enough to be able to amass some wealth and assets during your life of course it should be the case that you then draw on that to pay for care later on if you need it!

It’s really strange but people do infantilise elderly people once they reach a certain age and see them as the equivalent of helpless children or as one big homogenous group, I know when I get to that age I’m still going to be me and I’ll have had decades to consider and plan for what happens if I need care in the last years of my life, I won’t somehow transition into a helpless toddler who needs someone else to pay for my living expenses and care unless I absolutely can’t afford it myself. For people who can’t afford care and haven’t been able to accrue wealth the care should be provided by the state (it’s unthinkable, the alternative), but for those who’ve been fortunate enough to accrue wealth/property why on earth should their care be paid for by others while they sit on money to ‘pass down’?

@Gottagetout, the main cost in care homes is staff. In your scenario, the independent resident would have needed virtually no actual care, the other would make huge demands on staff time. Why would someone self sufficient apart from hotel services go into a care home anyway? Far cheaper to stay at home with a cleaner and ready meals.

I will be doing everything I can to ensure that as much as possible gets passed on to ds who is severely disabled and in a way that it can't be taken to fund his basic care. The 'state' will never care enough about him to ensure any quality of life for him so I will doing all I can to make it happen.

ok so you have bought your house/vs you didnt buy your house,
ie you have the funds vs you dont have the funds
you seem to be saying that you have worked hard all your life and now own your house vs what?
you didnt buy your house therefore you didnt work hard?

I'm going to invest some of my kids' inheritance on a bottle of whisky and a dozen packets of paracetamol and hope I have the nerve to consume them if the shit hits the fan. Although that may be viewed as tax evasion by then...to avoid IHT legally you won't be able to do yourself in as and when you wish, you'll probably have to have your euthanasia performed by an approved provider who conforms to a host of regs, charges a fortune and in turn pays tax on each kill. Now there's a business opportunity. As soon as it's legal expect some big nationwide chains to spring up. "Dreamy Pastures Killing Fields". "Valhalla Knackeries" "Tesco- Ready To Go".

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

Totally agree. I'd extend this to childcare too.

There is an assumption that homeowners have worked harder than those without assets. It's not just hard worker vs. feckless shirker, how many care home carers would have the assets to fund their own care? How many homeowners will have their assets from inheritance or after a divorce? This isn't to say those people don't deserve their money, but we don't live in an equal society in which hard work automatically = wealth.

I agree OP. I have a parent in a care home who started as self funding and is now LA funded as her assets ran out. My DF also went into care for the last couple of years of his life. Both with advanced dementia so although they lived with us for a few years there was really no option long term.

Between them their care has cost hundreds of thousands. While they had the money it was right that it went on funding their care, rather than handed to us, their DC, like a lottery win.

What I do find iniquitous is that LAs pay lower rates by negotiation than self funders, so are effectively being subsidised by them. That is quite wrong in my view.