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.

What do they do in other countries?

@5128gap

The argument about working hard all your life for the government to take it from you is flawed. Firstly it suggests only those who have been fortunate enough to be able to buy a home and benefit from house price rises have worked hard, when it is perfectly possible to have worked equally hard but been unable to buy a house. Secondly the government are taking nothing from the person needing care who is merely selling one home to afford another. They no longer need their home so it is not unreasonable to sell it for what they do need. The only losers are the children hoping to inherit a free house, which they most certainly have not worked hard for. I have no problem in paying tax to fund care, but don't see why tax payers should fund care so that independent adult children can secure an unearned windfall.

People also conveniently 'forget' that unless they bought the house a few years before needing care they've gotten plenty of benefit from it already. Having a stable home for the family, being able to decorate etc Houses aren't assets they're a basic need

Separately, am also fine to pay added NI and make sure folk are cared for but the new bill does disproportionately affect those with less expensive homes, which I find unfair - a percentage of value would have been better.

I agree with this

@Thursdaymiami

The point is why do wealthy people with assets to have great SOCIAL care get angry that a tiny tiny proportion of people who have been on benefits all their lives and have contributed not one penny of tax, get a shitty level of substandard care. I mean as a decent human, how can you be really angry about that

And most people I know that are in long term receipt of benefits are there because they really have no other choice. But I’m sure someone will come on and tell me they know a lady on 50k year of Benefits who goes to Barbados every year!

Basically this thread has turned into another benefits bashing thread.

Err no, it's people with average incomes (homeowners) getting angry at the fact that self-funders subsidise the people on benefits. And both get the SAME level of care. It's possible to get a better care home if you can pay but it really depends on where you live. I don't know a lot about it personally but from other people - in some areas you need to be really wealthy (or people have high earning adult children contribution). In others owning a house worth 200K would be enough.

Your assumptions in your small mind ronniz

the irony! 😆

@ronniz

Separately, am also fine to pay added NI and make sure folk are cared for but the new bill does disproportionately affect those with less expensive homes, which I find unfair - a percentage of value would have been better.

I agree with this

A related question - NI isn't the only source of funding is it? Council tax also pays for social care and mine has gone up by at least 20% in the last few years I've lived here.

What's the difference, who funds what? Am aware that social care includes everything

Well I supposed there is the argument that CT should be recalculated as the rates can be bit off. Mine has increased too. I'm not sure how it's broken down though.

It's perhaps that you pay national insurance from your salary and that is suppose to give you cradle to grave health benefits.
Geriatric care has been singled out as care that is not fully cover under this NHS umbrella.
Would there be outrage if say only your first child was covered under NHS maternity care, of course, well this is similar.
OP what is the taxation like in your home country is it lower so you can make your own insurance provision?
If you pay a large portion of tax throughout you working live then you might expect that full NHS care. Reduce my tax and I'll make.my own provision.

But NI isn't enough, that's the point.

I've paid NI since I was 17 & won't retire till my 60s so that's minimum 45 yrs of contributions. But it's probably not enough.

"shows that an 85-year-old man costs the NHS about seven times more on average than a man in his late 30s. Health spending per person steeply increases after the age of 50, with people aged 85 and over costing the NHS an average of £7,000 a year."

Would there be outrage if say only your first child was covered under NHS maternity care, of course, well this is similar.

No it's really not.

Plus previous generations had more dc then younger ones today so that doesn't make sense.

My parents' house is their asset, their money, their hard work. Not mine. If they need special care in the future then I want them to sell it and pay for good care in a nice place. The bit they left to me is a good childhood and the example of hard working, diligent members of society. That's what I inherit from them.

Someone who bought a house in the SE of England years ago and watched it increase in value by a few £100k or whatever hasn't "worked harder" than a school cleaner in a council house in Fort William. They just haven't.

What I object to is the two tier charging policy. Care/nursing homes locally charge between £1000 and £1300 per week to privately funded clients. The same beds/rooms are ‘sold’ to social services for £550 per week. Self funders subsidies the rest. So so wrong.

@Comedycook

Because I bought the house with my own money and I should have the choice to do with it what I please. This may include giving it to my kids, or giving it away to charity, my possession, my choice

You could say this about anything.

I demand free food from the government...why should I spend my own money? I earned it and I want to give it to my children.

I wouldn't expect free food! If I've bought something it's my right to do what I want with it! Alternatively if you've saved hard and bought say, an expensive handbag, but your next door neighbour wants it, would you give it to them? No!

I have a flat, it's my home, but I'd like to give it to my son. If I need it to pay for care, that's what will happen but as there is care available for people who don't have their own property, why should I be out of pocket?
Although I do understand that I am very lucky to have a property and not everyone else is. And that doesn't dispute the fact that some people work darned hard without owning, which isn't fair. I'd still like to give my property to my boy, I doubt he'll be able to afford his own place, and this will help him, so though that's another problem. This is all complicated.

Alternatively if you've saved hard and bought say, an expensive handbag, but your next door neighbour wants it, would you give it to them? No!

It's not the right analogy though.

The issue is housing & how it's become the main driver for the economy, the only asset most people have & the reason we have intergenerational equality re housing.

@clarepetal. But it's selling your home so you can live somewhere else. You cannot expect to live somewhere for free when you have the means to pay for it?

And that doesn't dispute the fact that some people work darned hard without owning, which isn't fair. I'd still like to give my property to my boy, I doubt he'll be able to afford his own place, and this will help him, so though that's another problem. This is all complicated.

I completely understand the sentiment. As your say your dc is unlikely to afford his own place without your help so he's no different to those you don't want to pay for. And what happens if it isn't enough? He's now the person others feel they shouldn't pay for.

I haven’t read the whole thread. My thoughts

Because lots work hard during their lifetime, paying NI to obtain free healthcare, schooling etc. But lots don’t work for whatever reason, or have not saved a pension and rely solely on the state pension

Then when you go into a care home those who only get state pension, have never saved etc get it for free, ,and those who have saved for old age, do have another source of pension have to pay, so in effect are being penalised for being prudent during their working life. It’s demoralising to hear your fellow care home residents boasting about how they don’t pay and have never paid

But lots don’t work for whatever reason, or have not saved a pension and rely solely on the state pension

Are they statistics for this? I would argue most do work, it's just not enough though. And pension schemes are not what they were.

@StopGo

What I object to is the two tier charging policy. Care/nursing homes locally charge between £1000 and £1300 per week to privately funded clients. The same beds/rooms are ‘sold’ to social services for £550 per week. Self funders subsidies the rest. So so wrong.

I think most posters could agree that the two-tier policy IS totally wrong. Why should two people( as in SS and a private payer) pay completely different amounts for the same service?

I know you can use the argument that SS is “buying in bulk” so to speak, but it’s still unfair.

I think higher inheritance tax would at least be fairer than charging people double or triple for the same service.

@changingchanges2

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

Totally agree.

I think higher inheritance tax would at least be fairer than charging people double or triple for the same service.

How does this solve the problem? what about people who don't receive any inheritance but still have to self fund?

'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.'

It isn't that. People have paid for their houses, why tf should they sell them when renters rightly get social care free. Imagine if folk in rented houses had to start selling their possessions to pay for care.

The problem is that people want their cake and eat it, they don’t want to pay extra money through tax to make this care “free” for everyone, but they also don’t want to pay for their own care.

You can’t have it both ways, the money has to come from somewhere, either we all pay more and the only the ones who need it benefit or we continue as we are and the ones who need it and can afford to pay for it do so themselves.

@ronniz

I think higher inheritance tax would at least be fairer than charging people double or triple for the same service.

How does this solve the problem? what about people who don't receive any inheritance but still have to self fund?

It doesn’t. What I mean is that charging one self-funded care home resident double or triple the amount that SS. Is paying for the person in the room next door is criminal.