Selling your home to pay for your care in your old age

[BlueCarnation]

Please explain why this is such an issue? I’m not from the UK but have worked and lived here for about 10 years. The amount of financial help the government provides is incredible and I’m still amazed by it after being here for so long. NHS, schools, SMP, different types of benefits, child credits etc. My country provides absolute no help like that for it’s residents.

One thing I can’t get my head around is the outrage people feel regarding paying for your own care when you’re older. A few weeks ago there was a news special where people were upset that their parents had to sell their homes to go into care. Surely that’s the point of years of hard work - so that when the time comes you have sufficient money? If I recall correctly, a woman said she would no longer be able to live in her mums house and would be homeless. Her mum was already in a care home but needed extra specialised care ( I think she had dementia) which government support was not enough for. The daughter said the house would need to be sold and her mum would have been devastated if she knew her home was being used to pay for her care. Why is that wrong or unfair?

Can you explain if you cannot live safely in your house anymore why shouldn’t the proceeds from your house sale be used to care for you until death? Why are adult children so up in arms at the thought of that? I don’t understand.

Why? Because they see the capital from their parents home as their inheritance, that's why! They want to spend it on themselves.

I think there is an argument that the state should provide care for the most vulnerable in society, though. But it does grate if while the state is doing that, the vulnerable are hanging on to a valuable asset, so it should be means tested.

I completely agree with you.

The thing is no one is entitled to an inheritance...why should the government (ie the tax payer) fund the care costs for people who own a substantial asset, in order to protect their children's inheritance? I find it outrageous

Many sign their houses over to their children to avoid this.
Work hard and pay taxes for most of your life then have to sell your assets to pay for care. A person who paid little to nothing gets the same care free of charge because they have no assets.

I completely agree with you OP!

It's mainly because children of adults who are in the verge don't want to miss out on inheritance from houses that have seen the fastest, biggest, rise in the last few decades, this country has ever, or will ever, see.

But no one ever seems to admit to this. I wonder why

It’s awful for social mobility. Rich people manage to hold on to their assets and pass them to their children. The entire value of poorer peoples houses goes on care.

But if you pay you get choice - if you don’t pay you could go anywhere- money gives choice.

@BlueCarnation I don’t get it. My DM was up in arms about it but why shouldn’t we pay for our own care? It’s madness!

@Chely

Many sign their houses over to their children to avoid this. Work hard and pay taxes for most of your life then have to sell your assets to pay for care. A person who paid little to nothing gets the same care free of charge because they have no assets.

Oh yeah, so let's go after UNEARNED WEALTH on property.

Drives me fucking nuts. Wealth from house price growth is unearned. That means two people who did the exact same job for the exact same amount of time all their lives, but one was fortunate enough to have a home, now gets to pass on vast amounts of unearned wealth to their offspring where their offspring have the advantage, and so it goes, so it goes...

The problem is that if you don't own your own home or other assets, your care will be paid for by the government. If someone is very wealthy this won't bother them. If someone has scrimped and worked hard to acquire savings/house, they will feel hard done by if they have to pay while someone who had similar earnings but did not save does not. This is particularly so as in many parts of the UK, private payers have to pay as much as double what the local authority pays for exactly the same care and accommodation in the same care home. They are in effect subsidising the publicly funded.

I don't get it either. I'm not from here either, came here 10 years ago. I always assume that's just what happens. You put money into your house and savings while young and able and then have that money for old age care when the time comes. It baffles me that it's not just assumed you sell up when you need the money for other things.

I would introduce 100% inheritance tax. (Perhaps excluding the first 10k or so). Would level the playing field for all and solve these kind of problems.

Yes inheritance is the obvious reason but the news special and the people who were interviewed made it seem like it was such a travesty I thought I was missing something else.

Selling one's home to pay for care apart, although, I'm not sure why it's such an unreasonable idea, the government doesn't provide the financial help and provision that you talk about OP, we pay for it out of our taxes and National Insurance contributions.

People talk about the NHS being free, it isn't. It's free at point of contact but every person working pays towards it.

I think for a lot of people that's part of the argument against having to sell their home to pay for their care in later life when they've probably paid into the welfare system the whole of their working lives.

Yes inheritance is the obvious reason but the news special and the people who were interviewed made it seem like it was such a travesty I thought I was missing something else.

They were talking of introducing a cap on care home fees. That would impact poorer people for whom it would be 100% of the value of their estate (house) a lot more than the rich for whom it would be a tiny percentage of what they own.

Care for the elderly is much bigger than selling the family home. We don’t actually care so much about the inheritance but she does. My grandma wishes she was dead and her lifetime wealth could be shared rather than paying for care that others get for free. If you need a hip operation or you’re pregnant, healthcare is free to you regardless of your wealth. The argument that if you’re rich you can pay for care in old age goes entirely against the equality the nhs brings.

Should add, we were unable to get support for my grandma to have carers in her home once she could no longer afford that option and so had to sell her home, where she wanted to stay, and move her to a care home where visiting is currently so limited it’s like a prison. Selling someone’s possessions while they are still alive is hideous.

@BlueCarnation

Yes inheritance is the obvious reason but the news special and the people who were interviewed made it seem like it was such a travesty I thought I was missing something else.

It goes against the fundamental idea of what the NHS stands for, which is that care is free for everyone at the point of service.

But requiring some people to pay for their care once they hit a certain age (but not others) goes against that principle.

dementia is a progressive terminal disease.
we have a nhs.
why are people suffering cancer or heart disease or MS etc not forced to sell their homes to pay for care.
that resident daughter may have spent years caring for her mother in her home, getting less than £10 a day in carer's allowance, if she is lucky.
there is very little support for family carers.
they save the govt millions.
then they are pitched out. homeless. probably had to give up work to care for relative, day and night, now too old to get a job, or a mortgage.
no priority for social housing.
i think people who have not had experience of this have no idea what it is like.
imagine having a large heavy toddler, who has to be constantly supervised, fed and washed, inco pads changed in the bed, turned to avoid pressure sores, who may be violent at times, and who regresses, able to do/understand less and less. forgets who you are. whom you love. and doing that all alone usually, day and night.
and constant battles with HCPs, to maintain best medical condition.
continence care, skin care, all monitoring, soft food, spoon feeding.
cannot just pop out, never go on holiday.
then if social services intervene and say this relative must go into a nursing home, house sold, family carer tipped out on to street.
no one cares for the carer.
and the relative while they can still speak, saying thinking at least devoted daughter will be safely housed, even if poor, a roof over their head. that they can, will, want to, leave house to daughter.
but they can't.
i know whereof i speak. it is a national disgrace. the whole system.

@Comedycook

I completely agree with you.

The thing is no one is entitled to an inheritance...why should the government (ie the tax payer) fund the care costs for people who own a substantial asset, in order to protect their children's inheritance? I find it outrageous

Why pay tax so? In Europe the model is completely different. Try living in Germany or Denmark. Tax in the UK is squandered thats why poverty and social care is so unequitable. I bought my house, I paid tax on my wages so why should my asset not be used for my kids? Tax is to fund the running of society including end of life care. The govt has allowed private suppliers address this instead of providing it themselves. I dont live in the UK anymore but am always in awe of how easily people give up their assets they worked hard for.

It goes against the fundamental idea of what the NHS stands for, which is that care is free for everyone at the point of service.

But requiring some people to pay for their care once they hit a certain age (but not others) goes against that principle.

There's a big difference between medical care like a hip replacement or cancer treatment and needing to live for years and years in a care home with daily assistance. The latter is not what the NHS is for.

Personal pensions should be compulsary, you shouldn’t be able to opt out, then if you need care in later life, even a modest pension pot should cover at least a couple of years in a care home.

People want it both ways, they don't care for their parents and still inherit 🤷🏽‍♀️

Could be because some people don’t work a day in their lives therefore when they need care they get it free (benefits takes - £30 a week currently) whereas someone who has worked all their lives, struggled to pay their mortgage etc, paid their taxes has to sell their hard earned home to pay for care.
Don’t see what is so hard to understand about that Unless of course you were being obtuse pretending not to know!!

I think part of the problem ime is that people aren’t always aware that’s the system until it affects them.

Also because the way the system is set up it is something of a lottery.
If you have certain health conditions the nhs will pay for your care with no contribution from you. Admittedly it’s likely to be for a shorter time as the prognosis will be poorer.
If you have dementia, they won’t and you will have to pay for a bed in the same care home yourself.

With dementia it’s also that you may need expensive care for years.

Is it fair that I come from a family where my grandparents lived long lives without getting dementia and so were able to live at home with minimum help, so their wealth passed down through the family. Just because they weren’t unlucky enough to get dementia?

I don’t know what the answer is.

But I do know that multiple times on the phone I hear “but I/my parents have paid taxes all their lives! They’re being penalised for working hard and having savings! If they’d stayed on benefits and lived in a council house the council would pay!” Etc etc….

It goes against the fundamental idea of what the NHS stands for, which is that care is free for everyone at the point of service.

No it doesn't. The NHS was never meant to provide 'care', it was set up to provide a health service based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

Having a hotel-type stay is not clinic need, if we wish to provide a National Care Service then that is a separate requirement that should be funded accordingly. No government is going to introduce a solely tax-payer funded care system, it would kill them in an election if everyone's income tax raised by, say, 15%.

It is easy to judge whenever it isn't your experience from home.

I have the same thoughts about the NHS.
I believe a country should look after the vulnerable but the NHS is expected to do it for everyone regardless of their income.
Madness.
People talk about the NHS being free, it isn't. It's free at point of contact but every person working pays towards it.
In other countries everyone pays tax and prsi for hospitals with additional insurance, charges based on services they use.
It's a wonderful setup in theory but it isn't practical.
It's one or the other you can't have everything free.
In Ireland the fair-deal scheme takes 20% of the value on the house towards NH if you're there a weeks or a decade.
Free health care for low income.
Maximum cost 10 night hospital stay per year.