To think families are going to have to look after their own old people?

[ElderAve]

It's not a judgement, the idea fills me with dread but how else are we supposed to pay for it? In a world where:

• It's political suicide to suggest that people who have valuable homes, they are no longer living in should use that value to pay for care.
• Everyone should be paid a proper living wage.
• We have increasing numbers of people needing care.

For example, between DH and I we have 4 elderly parents, still very much fit and well, but realistically, that can't carry on forever. Those parents have 4 working offspring.

I don't know how many residents a care home worker can care for but let's say it's 12, which to provide 24hr care means 3 shifts, so the equivalent of 1 full person to care for our 4 parents. That means that the state needs to raise tax equivalent to 1 (living wage) salary from the four of us and that's before paying for schools, hospitals etc.

Obviously not everyone has elderly parents needing care but those will often be heavy users of the schools system and we still need to pay for all the other services.

I just can't see how the state can do it, if they keep promising not to take the elderly's homes, which is so emotive.

There is no way I am going to look after mine after what they did to me. They have enough money, they can pay for their own care.

YABU.

I'll still be working to keep a roof over my head when my parents need care - I won't be able to look after them.

I firmly believe in euthanasia and would opt for that rather than have my DD feel obligated to look after me in old age when I could.no longer look after myself

I’m hoping the Right to Die becomes law.
I cared for my parents for several years, and I don’t want that for me.
I want to leave on my own terms, and without having to plan my own suicide.

We looked after my DPs elderly parents until their deaths and no doubt will do so for mine if and when it becomes necessary.

I work in a care home which costs approx £1100 a week.
My Stepdad in his mid 60s has a terminal illness and will require a level of care at some point in the near future. We have therefore built an annexe in our garden for my parents to live in with my Mum and I on hand to support my Stepdad.
Now I realise that this is not the norm as not everyone has the room or physical/emotional capacity but we, as a family, felt this was the right approach.
We're currently all living together whilst the building is finished which brings its own issues but on the whole I'm pleased to be available when needed.

So "we" prefer euthanasia to having homes that are no longer required forfeited?

I have some qualms about euthanasia, I'm certain it would be abused but even if we can find a way to make it safe, there are lots of people too old or infirm to live completely independently who aren't yet at the stage where they'd want to die, surely?

People’s homes should be used to finance their care- if their relatives would prefer the inheritance they can look after them!

Sadly, I think if a person no longer lives in their home then eventually, they will have to sell it to pay for care. Seems very unfair after they have worked for it but otherwise, I can't see how the state can pay.

That way, those who don't have savings/their own home can still be paid for.

Some families can and will look after their elderly relatives but it isn't always possible. For instance, my mum works in a care home looking after people with brain injury. These people can be violent and are a danger to themselves and/or others. Of course, it is absolutely not their fault but them living with family just wouldn't work. They need specialist care in a secure unit. Many cannot be left even for a moment so a family trying to care for them would have to have people available 24/7 so that they could take turns having a shower etc.

Some families can't/won't for reasons others have described such as abuse which is an equally valid reason.

I don't know what the answer is ultimately.

It's political suicide to suggest that people who have valuable homes, they are no longer living in should use that value to pay for care.

Political suicide or not, it needs to be said; people who own their own homes either need to sell up to pay for their care or find an alternative way to pay for care. If they have no alternative, sell it and let them receive good care in their old age. I don't see why anyone would do anything other than this; I don't expect my DC to care for me as I age, and nor do I bank on the state being able to fund my dotage. I also don't expect my parents to leave their homes for me to inherit; if they sell up or remortgage to take the money out so they can enjoy their retirements and live well that's just common sense.

It’s not about my house or the money, it’s about not wanting to live in a state of fear, pain, confusion, incontinence and misery for years.
I don’t mind a bit of help from relatives, but needing endless proper care that I can’t do for myself? No thank you.

Is it Germany where over 40s have to pay into some sort of insurance scheme to pay for care in old age?

People already do have to sell their homes to pay for their care and/or use their savings. The government only pay for people who have no property to sell and not much in savings.

This has been the case for years.

Yes, that's how I feel. Why does the state protect an inheritance that is in property differently to other inheritances? But no party that suggested it was going to "steal" homes would win.

I'd love to know how the (many) people who feel so strongly that homes shouldn't be used to pay for care think it can be funded.

There’s a set amount that’s safe guarded no from a persons savings?

We don’t have room for another person in our house and both work full time but thankfully my dps have no intention of hanging onto their house or saving to give us an inheritance. They’ve downsized already to an apartment and if needed will sell that too. It won’t be easy if they live long lives with complex care needs but they didn’t inherit from their parents and we don’t expect to from them. Pils are quite wealthy, they looked after their parents so saved on care costs and inherited from their homes, they should manage to pay their own care.
In both cases we have all settled close enough that we can visit often if not daily for a cuppa, it’s not that we intend to abandon them in paid care.

Not everyone can care for elderly relatives or should feel obliged to, MIL for example can go whistle if she thinks any care will be forthcoming from us, but the government should do more to help people who do want to provide care for family members.

They could raise Carers' Allowance to a more reasonable amount, it's currently £66.15 per week which equates to £1.89 an hour for anyone providing 35hrs p/wk of care, which is the minimum amount of care needed in order to claim, or 39p an hour for anyone giving care 24/7.

They could also incentivise employers to provide paid care breaks, funded and administrated in much the same as maternity leave with a statutory minimum pay and employers able to give contractual pay too, self-employed people could claim it as an allowance based on NI contributions. For example, if an immediate family member was diagnosed with a terminal illness or was on an end of life pathway then the employee could take paid leave of up to six months in order to provide care.

Money should be invested in social housing warden-run bungalows to enable people in need of care but not live-in care to maintain some independence with professional support immediately on hand 24/7.

Give rebates on inheritance tax where the family has provided social care.

There are ways around the social care issue but no one is willing to throw money at the problem.

It’s about £26,000. More than that, and you pay for care. Many nursing homes run at £800-1000 a week fir standard care.

Absolutely homes should be sold to pay for care when not needed anymore. Why should the tax payer pay more for Mrs Jones' nursing home place just so her family can receive an inheritance? We cannot afford sentiment.
The problem is too many people living far too long. And I say that as a nurse of thirty years.
My DM ended up on antidepressants and BP medication trying to care for my GM. No way will we be doing that for IL's. They're loaded, and knowing the rules and having chosen not to enjoy or give their money away, they can't selfishly expect family to jump to. That's what's carers, cleaners, gardeners etc are for.

It's political suicide to suggest that people who have valuable homes, they are no longer living in should use that value to pay for care

It might be political suicide to suggest this in your manifesto, but it is realistic. Personally, every single one of my friends elderly parents have paid for their own care by selling their house. I won't get any inheritance because of this, but really, why should the state (taxpayers) pick up the bill for elderly care when you have a £1 million pound asset, it's just not sustainable when so many folk are now living for 30 or 40 years without working and in poor health.

I don’t see why people should inherit their parents property/assets if they’ve not provided care for them in their dotage. Maybe a small amount should be ringfenced but you shouldn’t expect anything for nothing. People won’t have paid enough taxes to cover long term care of the elderly.

Well, it will go one of two ways:

-a national care service, in recognition that it's needed and best funded on a collective level. Not everyone will need care, but for those that do, there is that safety net. Yes, they will need some kind of care tax. It's unavoidable: pensions and healthcare costs are rising as we get older.

• alternatively, be prepared for some depressing scenarios around care. Alzheimer's did not appear to be as prevalent in Victorian times (for example), but you would still hear of granny upstairs in one room, visited with food and given a weekly sponge bath. That's not ideal and that is what people go on about, as an example of "looking after your own". No mention of a doubly-incontinent elderly man, spitting abuse and trying to wander down the street at midnight, by comparison. That level of care simply can't be done by one or two people: you need a team and the right facilities for them.

The other example held up is of people in China, India and Africa looking after their elderly. Again, an ideal as it presupposes someone at home and willing to do it. I have read really sobering stories of poorer families in China who had to lock their elders at home in order to work, or else they are found wandering around the village. Under the current benefits system, carers are given a paltry allowance and the reality is,if you have a mortgage or other dependents you need to work. Not to mention the rising pension age to 67. It's just not feasible.

Why are care homes so expensive?

What are the statistics for people actually ending up in residential care in their old age? I know anecdote is not data and all that but of all the elderly people I know/have known, the vast majority of them have been cared for by their relatives. Of those who went into a care home, it was because they had very complex needs and/or very advanced dementia.

My family nursed my father at home until he died and we now care for my elderly mother in the same way. The strain has been immense, but the reality is that most people aren't entitled to help from the state and they have to manage as best they can.

What on earth will happen in the future when a lot of my generation who are in their 30s can’t afford to get on the property ladder in the first place to find their care later. I can see a huge chunk of the population not having the means to self-fund.