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.

So people on this thread think capitalism is a good thing. People should keep their money. And that living in a vibrant economically stable country is good, if they owned their own business they would also think it’s good that they got cheap bulk prices for services or goods.

But if a LA gets a bulk discount because they are the biggest supplier of “clients” to care homes, that’s TOTALLY unfair and should never happen. And your grandma is being ripped off and subsidising the feckless poor.

@ronnitz. I agree and I would far rather my Dad spent his money on good care if he needs it than inherit anything.

@Thursdaymiami. I too wouldn’t mind seeing a link showing local authority spending vs. Self-payer spending if @StopGo has one. I’m not bashing poorer people, I assumed @StopGo was basing their assertion on facts- and if it’s true, I find it a truly bizarre system, because it’s such a limited pool of people providing those funds.

It’s like saying that only parents should pay the taxes used for child benefit and schools, and anyone who’s child-free shouldn’t contribute to them.

@Cameleongirl
Exactly I don’t have children,
Why the fuck am I paying for people who churn out children and expect to get free education for them

@ronniz

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.

The crux of the matter is that the modern ‘care’ system is a profit making and very lucrative industry.

@Thursdaymiami

"Why the fuck am I paying for people who churn out children and expect to get free education for them"

++++

Well mainly because by educating children you create a more productive workforce generating greater wealth in the country and thus greater tax revenues for society.

@Thursdaymiami. Exactly, everyone os paying towards children’s free education, not just a certain pool of people.

If what @StopGo asserts is true, the self payers in care homes are paying double to fund fellow residents who can’t afford to pay.

Surely that cost could be spread more widely across society, just as the cost of free education is? If more funding is needed for elder care, shouldn’t everyone contribute more? Why are elderly self payers bearing so much of the burden?

[quote Cameleongirl]@ronnitz. I agree and I would far rather my Dad spent his money on good care if he needs it than inherit anything.

@Thursdaymiami. I too wouldn’t mind seeing a link showing local authority spending vs. Self-payer spending if @StopGo has one. I’m not bashing poorer people, I assumed @StopGo was basing their assertion on facts- and if it’s true, I find it a truly bizarre system, because it’s such a limited pool of people providing those funds.

It’s like saying that only parents should pay the taxes used for child benefit and schools, and anyone who’s child-free shouldn’t contribute to them.[/quote]
Personal experience. My DF had to go into respite care urgently after DM had an accident.

Both social services and the care home manager were only too keen to tell me the budget and how much higher the charges would be if DF decided to stay.

@StopGo. So they told you what your DF would have to pay as a self funder and what SS would pay if he wasn’t self-funding?

@1dayatatime
Eh?
So it’s ok to pay for people when young so they contribute more to society,
But not ok to pay for people when their old who have contributed to society?

So basically you genuinely think people who are old and poor should get nothing, because they’ve proved how worthless they are to society. But we give kids a chance, just in case they end up paying a decent wedge in taxes.

Do you know who you sound like?

Not everyone who rents is a feckless layabout who has frittered away their cash...what a weird thought process.

I didn't say everybody; but I am thinking of some real people, who are not products of my thought processes! One of whom is an alcoholic! Do you agree that some alcoholics are likely to lose everything through their addiction - their house, marriage, family.....?

[quote Cameleongirl]@Thursdaymiami. Exactly, everyone os paying towards children’s free education, not just a certain pool of people.

If what @StopGo asserts is true, the self payers in care homes are paying double to fund fellow residents who can’t afford to pay.

Surely that cost could be spread more widely across society, just as the cost of free education is? If more funding is needed for elder care, shouldn’t everyone contribute more? Why are elderly self payers bearing so much of the burden?[/quote]
But its not really a burden on them is it? They have reached a point in their lives where their assets are of no further use to them, so what harm is being done to them if that asset funds care?

@Intercity225
So you think an alcoholic who has an illness shouldn’t receive care when they’re older, because the illness is of their own making

@Intercity225

Not everyone who rents is a feckless layabout who has frittered away their cash...what a weird thought process.

I didn't say everybody; but I am thinking of some real people, who are not products of my thought processes! One of whom is an alcoholic! Do you agree that some alcoholics are likely to lose everything through their addiction - their house, marriage, family.....?

I don't get your point...my dad was an alcoholic. It killed him. He never claimed a penny in benefits and when he died we paid over 200k in inheritance tax. I have no idea why you have chosen alcoholics as your example...those people are ill...not scum.

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

No, but the figures I quoted in my earlier post came from a talk I attended last week, by the Director of Adult Social Services here, at a conference. Iirc, he said they pay £549 per week for an elderly person in a care home, while self funders pay £1,000 - £1,200 per week, so the real cost of a place is likely to be £549 + £1,200, divided by two - about £850. (he actually said £862).

But why shouldn’t the LA get a bulk discount
That’s capitalism

You can’t have capitalism for the good bits where you win. And socialism for the bits you don’t want to pay for.
That’s not how it works.

I don't get your point...my dad was an alcoholic. It killed him. He never claimed a penny in benefits and when he died we paid over 200k in inheritance tax. I have no idea why you have chosen alcoholics as your example...those people are ill...not scum.

As I said, that was one person I was thinking of, and while your DF may have never claimed benefits, the person I am thinking of did. I never said they were scum!

I was also thinking of two other couples - one did fritter their money away, and the other scrimped and saved. Just because you haven't come across it, doesn't mean to say, I am imagining it!

@Intercity225
So you fundamentally believe some people deserve dignity and care in old age and others don’t. Because of their life choices, or becoming ill.

Interesting. You Sound like a nice person.

So you can think of one person who was an alcoholic and claimed benefits and that's enough to convince you that all the amazing, hard working, tax paying home owners shouldn't have to sell their homes to fund their care? Righto...

I think if you can afford to/ have assets you should pay towards your care but I think it should be capped. However my dsis is a SW in adults social care and does lots of care assessments. People who have been on benefits and never worked get their care for 'free' and it's automatic, but someone else who has worked and owned their home (which most people want to pass on to their family) have to go through rigorous assessment, sometimes taking months and then end up paying for their care- which is so high, here it is £800 per week standard. We live in an area where homes cost £100-200k, so we're not talking about millionaires.
I don't know what the solution is but it seems grossly unfair.

I listened to a radio phone in on this topic and one caller said her parents had been frugal all their lives, worked hard, lived in a nice house but had always wanted to go on a cruise.

Then, in their 80s, they both needed care and their entire estate went to pay for the care. And no cruise.

It was weird, as though having to pay for care in their 80s had robbed them of going on a cruise, when they had in fact, had 40 years and enough funds.

I think if you are genuinely not invested in the idea of inheritance (and I'm not) then the idea of all your parents money going on care seems quite practical.

But its not really a burden on them is it? They have reached a point in their lives where their assets are of no further use to them, so what harm is being done to them if that asset funds care?

@5128gap. I think it would make more sense to spread the cost across the whole of society though. Just like education, state pensions, etc.

Increased inheritance tax is another way of funding elder care. That way, my great-aunt who died at 102 without going into a home would have contributed far more to someone else’s care, IYSWIM.

I think it would make more sense to spread the cost across the whole of society though. Just like education, state pensions, etc.

But some of it is as many people pay CT for example. And when you say spread across all do you mean only those working?

Money gets you into a better/nicer care home!

Money gets you into a prettier care home, but please don't assume that equates to better care.

The new health & social care bill will help fund things I assume as from 2023 it applies to everyone earning regardless of age.

@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.

So people save hard all their lives and think they are more virtuous than those on benefits but at the end of the day they are exactly the same and expect the tax payer to fund their old age. Somehow they don't seem to think they are receiving benefits but a state funded old age is still a tax payer financed benefit Hmm