Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

462 replies

BlueCarnation · 04/12/2021 14:47

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.

OP posts:
ronniz · 04/12/2021 19:46

I'm actually quite shocked at some of the attitudes on this thread.

Cameleongirl · 04/12/2021 19:47

@ronnitz. Do you think it’s fair to charge two people different prices for the same service though?

shouldistop · 04/12/2021 19:48

I think it's because, if you don't have any means then your care will be paid for by the state.
However to do it any other way means that poorer elderly people would be left to rot which obviously can't be allowed to happen.

ronniz · 04/12/2021 19:48

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.

Why is it criminal though? Not everyone can pay, some won't have a home, some will have had a cheap home. I've never thought it criminal that my tax funds people who never saved for a pension. Or that someone next to me in a hospital might not have paid as much NI as me or someone at nursery gets child benefit.

OddsNSodsBitsNBobs · 04/12/2021 19:51

@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 Hmm

Erm, you cant just do that....
ronniz · 04/12/2021 19:52

Do you think it’s fair to charge two people different prices for the same service though?

I think it's fair that people pay what they can. If people don't want to pay anything & want everyone to get it at the same price how do you suggest that funding model works?

Some people will pay thousands in NI & hardly need the NHS, others will contribute hardly anything & have chronic conditions.

@Cameleongirl my parents house is worth about 2m & they have holiday homes abroad. Should they pay or not?

OddsNSodsBitsNBobs · 04/12/2021 19:52

@changingchanges Sorry, wrong post quoted!

OddsNSodsBitsNBobs · 04/12/2021 19:54

@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.
Erm, you cant do that!
RandomLondoner · 04/12/2021 20:06

@PurpleDaisies

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.
I've seen people making this point vociferously on the news. It amounts to saying that people with more money can buy more before they run out of money. I think they believe if they state the bleeding obvious in an outraged enough tone, people will pick up on the tone and not register that their is no meaningful content.
Cameleongirl · 04/12/2021 20:06

@ronnitz. But it’s such a huge disparity though and it only affects the people who need care.

I just think it’s awful to charge an elderly and presumably vulnerable person so much more for the same service simply because they have an asset like a house. I don’t think it’s wrong to charge them, just not two or three times more.

As PP’s have suggested, perhaps an additional, more widespread tax is needed so that working adults and elderly people who don’t need care contribute more to elder care throughout their lives.

TractorAndHeadphones · 04/12/2021 20:08

@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 agree that this is very wrong! Even normal companies selling services don’t give ‘bulk buy’ discounts of over 50%.

Find the money from somewhere, tax everyone but don’t steal from the people already unlucky enough to need care. I can see why people don’t want to pay in this case

RandomLondoner · 04/12/2021 20:12

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.

I would imagine a renter with several hundred thousand in bank deposits or shares will if anything be more likely to be liable for their own care costs than a home-owner of the same net worth whose money is tied up in their house.

It's not unusual for people who can afford to pay their own way not to be eligible for government subsidies.

Cameleongirl · 04/12/2021 20:13

@ronnitz. It sounds if your parents could pay for their care, just as my Dad could. That’s perfectly fine, but it might make sense to contribute an elder care tax now than pay double if/when the time comes that they need

TractorAndHeadphones · 04/12/2021 20:20

[quote Cameleongirl]@ronnitz. It sounds if your parents could pay for their care, just as my Dad could. That’s perfectly fine, but it might make sense to contribute an elder care tax now than pay double if/when the time comes that they need[/quote]
Also - those who pay double are those who are unlucky enough to need care. The burden isn't shared.

ronniz · 04/12/2021 20:22

I just think it’s awful to charge an elderly and presumably vulnerable person so much more for the same service simply because they have an asset like a house. I don’t think it’s wrong to charge them, just not two or three times more.

But they are subsidising those that can't, like everything in life. I think it's horrific to just let someone fend for themselves because they don't have a house.

As PP’s have suggested, perhaps an additional, more widespread tax is needed so that working adults and elderly people who don’t need care contribute more to elder care throughout their lives.

I think a wealth tax is a good idea but it's not popular.

ronniz · 04/12/2021 20:24

That’s perfectly fine, but it might make sense to contribute an elder care tax now than pay double if/when the time comes that they need

People won't vote for it though cause it's the same arguments of "why should I find others" or "I've paid my taxes" etc etc

Thursdaymiami · 04/12/2021 20:25

Where are the facts that the self funded pay triple those of LA funded?
Anyone got a link

Or is this a thought with no factual back up, based on bashing the poorer of society again.

And just because you pay more, doesn’t mean you’re subsidising everyone else. That’s not how economics work, it’s a bit basic. It’s far more complex.

ronniz · 04/12/2021 20:26

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.

Basically.

TractorAndHeadphones · 04/12/2021 20:29

@ronniz

That’s perfectly fine, but it might make sense to contribute an elder care tax now than pay double if/when the time comes that they need

People won't vote for it though cause it's the same arguments of "why should I find others" or "I've paid my taxes" etc etc

Honestly if the only solution is to for self-funders alone to subside others to the tune of double then I can see why people don't want to pay. Wouldn't blame them for taking steps to avoid it. They're not being acted by morally, so they have every right to do some 'immoral' things of their own.
ronniz · 04/12/2021 20:30

@TractorAndHeadphones but it's way more complex than that

ronniz · 04/12/2021 20:30

My parents are happy to pay for their care & feel lucky to have a choice. It doesn't bother me that it might impact my inheritance 🤷🏻‍♀️

TractorAndHeadphones · 04/12/2021 20:32

@Thursdaymiami

Where are the facts that the self funded pay triple those of LA funded? Anyone got a link

Or is this a thought with no factual back up, based on bashing the poorer of society again.

And just because you pay more, doesn’t mean you’re subsidising everyone else. That’s not how economics work, it’s a bit basic. It’s far more complex.

This was on the personal experience of a pp. Again another issue is that it's very different across councils! A colleague's relative paid as much as PP said as a self funder and managed to stay in a much nicer care home with no LA funded people about. This is in the NorthEast.

Unless there's some sort of website or official MSE/Which/whatever webstie on care homes.

Maybe an MN thread should be ongoing where people cna share

TractorAndHeadphones · 04/12/2021 20:37

[quote ronniz]@TractorAndHeadphones but it's way more complex than that [/quote]
How so?
Yes, collecting the taxes etc etc might not be the easiest choice although it's the most fairest. Also as @Thursdaymiami says just because you're paying more doesn't mean you're subsidising everyone else. What does this mean?

I admit that I don't know much about this first hand but in terms of understanding people's opinions - it's also complex. Not always as simple as people not wanting their inheritance taken away. In some cases children contribute to the cost!

yoyo1234 · 04/12/2021 20:39

Me and DH save for our retirement (we are lucky we can and our employers also contribute a lot to our pension schemes). We aim to fund any care we may need later on in life, we see it as our responsibility.

Superstar22 · 04/12/2021 20:43

I totally disagree with you.

The public funds the things you mention, and people pay taxes all their life towards care. We should support our elderly, they have contributed a great deal to our society. I agree some aspects of care should be means tested but it should be fair.

Taking the first £80k of someone’s wealth when their entire house may be £80k isn’t fair. Many many people can afford much more IF we are charging, and many others much less. Something like 20% of your wealth could be fair. That would be the same for everyone.