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.

I haven’t lived in the UK for years so I’m not familiar with the current tax codes, I’m sure you know more, @ronnitz.

My point is that the current SS vs. self-payer fee structure seems odd and surely there must be a better way to spread the cost of elder care across society. Getting a pool of self payers to pay significantly more doesn’t seem the most logical way to do it, it’s unreliable for a start.

The divides between nhs care in a hospital setting, “social” care in a residential care home, and “nursing” care in a nursing home are entirely artificial and political - a political decision based on how long illnesses last, the recognition that most people needing this kind of care do not recover, and the understanding that you can persuade enough of the electorate that the nature of illness and suffering changes once you leave a hospital.

I would rather see social and nursing care funded by an aggressively policed and far more expansive inheritance tax, so that everyone with property contributes through property taxes, rather than just those who suffer an illness that leads them to need long periods of care. We wouldn’t accept this for care provided in a hospital, so why does it suddenly become acceptable just because someone is in a nursing home. The risk of long term illness should be shared by everyone with property - not just those who fall ill and their families.

@Cameleongirl from April 2022 there is a NI increase so say you earn 50k a yr you will pay an extra £550 a yr in tax. From 2023 that changes to a health & social levy and older people working but not paying NI will also have to pay it. It's quite a significant tax increase particularly as the tax bands are frozen for a few years. Employers NI contributions are also increasing.

The only way to spread it fairly across society is a wealth tax which would mean some elderly people would have to pay more. Younger generations won't have the same housing wealth hence the new levy.

I haven't read all the thread

Some people also have an emotional attachment to property, its contents & memories. Especially, if the property was a forever home.

You could have someone who had lived somewhere for 70, 80 years.

There is a difference between selling a property before someone has passed & after they have passed.

The only way to spread it fairly across society is a wealth tax which would mean some elderly people would have to pay more.

I personally think that’s reasonable.

What bothers my parents is they worked hard all their lives and paid taxes.

They could have to sell their home to pay for care, when someone who was either unemployed, or spent their money rather than bought a house, will get he same level of care for free.

In my parents generation there is a lot of bitterness about the welfare state and how much they perceive people on benefits get.

@RandomMess

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

and what of those who do do the daily care of their parents, all of it, and still end up homeless, never mind any inheritance.

@ronniz. To clarify, what I meant when I agreed with you about the wealth tax is that everyone should pay more towards elder care, not just the self-payers currently in care homes. My Dad (and your parents from what you've said) could afford to pay a wealth tax that would help to support those needing care.

Would any of these help to make anything feel fairer.

1. A benefits cap across a lifetime for each person- not sure how it could be made to work but worth a thought.

Get rid of the £86,000 rule and make it a tax instead on those who require social care. Either:

1. A % of a property, (sold after death if necessary), that went towards social care eg anyone requiring social care at any stage in life who owned a property - or whose parents do- is required to hand over 20% of the value of the property (valued at the time they enter social care) as a contribution to their care. So if a house is valued at 200,000, it's £40,000, if it's valued at 1000,000, it's 200,000. It would be 20% of every property owned at the point a person entered social care. If you are married your 20% is of half of your property value each.
2. If you don't own a property but have savings it would be 20% of savings given as a lump sum when you entered care.
3. NHS would not issue prescriptions to anyone for anything you can buy in a chemist not on prescription. eg painkillers, eye ointment, dry eye drops, calpol, etc. And make more medicines available over the counter not on prescription

6.We pay a £10.00 charge for every GP appointment or pay £100 a year to GP practice.

I think its because not everyone would need care.

I read a stat that 1 in 10 people would end up in a care home. The rest wouldn't. But if they get cancer or a stroke (and die of it), their treatment is 100% free. So its luck of the draw whether you will get dementia or cancer in your old age.

@Mellowyellow222 But your parents would have the ability to pick their care home if they pay for it themselves. A luxury people whose care is covered by the state don't have.

Its the same argument as with council vs private housing. For a council tenant in London vs someone who buys or rents privately in the next street. The council tenant would only need to pay subsidized rent, gets a stable place to live and can even decorate. The person who buys often has to work really hard to save up a huge deposit and takes on financial risk i.e. if the mortgage can't be paid for whatever reason, all the person's life savings could be lost. So you could say the person who buys a property is an utter mug because he or she is working so hard for a roof over their head when you could potentially get a council house by working fewer hours or not working at all. But what the person who buys is paying for is Choice- he can buy whatever he or she likes in whatever location and also often with the desired number of bedrooms (while the council tenant is left with whatever he or she is allocated). So not many people would be envious of the council tenant; just like I wouldn't be envious of the person without money to pay for care and is left in whatever care home the government sticks him or her in.

@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.

but what's the alternative, without a whole-scale reform. you can't have the publically funded clients live in a shed in the garden of the care home. ?threadbare sheets/blankets. diet of gruel. work picking oakum. that was tried, re the deserving poor. the undeserving got nothing.

But what about those of us with disabled dc who wont be able to manage independently?

My home is my gift to them to ensure they are safe when I'm gone. I have saved the government hundreds of thousands by giving up my career to become their carer and sacrificed my ability to save or have a decent pension.

Hell will freeze over before I let the government take the house off them to pay for my care.

[quote Cameleongirl]@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?[/quote]
Yes. They gave me a 'budget' for the emergency provision, then when we were considering our options they openly explained the charge differences.

@Thursdaymiami

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.

That in a nutshell is my point. The care industry is a lucrative industry for some people.

I think the real question is how many of these people would choose that existence? It’s big business. Mother nature decided it was your time but modern medicine developed a pill to keep you in existence just long enough to fleece you of all you have. Care home operators are cashing in while staff have low wages and horrible working conditions. I don’t want to sell my house so some rich board members can get richer while some single mum on minimum wage wipes my backside. Phone dignitas. Or the local farm vet. I don’t care I’d rather check out on my own terms.

The argument about working hard all my life to afford my house is too simplistic. Many, many people work hard all their lives but are not in a position to buy a house because they are priced out of the market.

DH and I own our house, and it's worth double what we paid for it 20 years ago. We haven't paid any tax on the increase in value. We now have a spare bedroom as DS2 has moved out, and will have another one when DS1 eventually moves out. Someone who has worked just as hard as us but in a lower paid job and who is in a council house would be forced to move or pay a bedroom tax due to having an unused bedroom. If they were in private rented accommodation then have no real security, can't make changes they might want to their home, might not even be allowed to paint the walls their preferred colour.

DH and I bought a house not to give an inheritance to our children but so that we had somewhere secure to live. Buying our own home has given us choices.

@H0tJarSpicy

I haven't read all the thread

Some people also have an emotional attachment to property, its contents & memories. Especially, if the property was a forever home.

You could have someone who had lived somewhere for 70, 80 years.

There is a difference between selling a property before someone has passed & after they have passed.

That's unfortunate but nothing to do with funding. If someone was struggling excessively and couldn't get over this emotional impact then medical care kicks in and they become eligible for antidepressants or counselling. It's not a reason why people should keep their houses and not pay for care.

and what of those who do do the daily care of their parents, all of it, and still end up homeless, never mind any inheritance.

The state has provision in place for homeless people too. I know it's imperfect and provision depends on area/number of homeless etc but there is a system.

If my mother hadn't spent her last few years in care I would probably have been left enough money to buy a house of my own.

However, I couldn't care less that I inherited much less because she had to pay for her care. I would far rather she have been well cared for in the last few years of her life than inherit her money. I cannot believe the greed and entitlement of those who think they have a right to their parents' money, and it should not be used for their care in old age. If you want money, earn your own!

My parents were lucky enough to buy the house they rented as sitting tenants when the landlady died, they got it for £2k when it was worth probably 3 or 4 times that. My grandparents paid for it so that they wouldn't have to have a mortgage, my parents ploughed all their time & money renovating the house turning it in to a wonderful home. That house is now worth £250k, my parents always worked & never claimed a penny in benefits, my dad passed away 3 years ago & my mum continues to live there as they future proofed the house putting in a walk in shower, stairlift, grab rails etc. When anything happens to my mum the house will be sold & the proceeds split between me & my brother, there will be enough for me to either buy my council home or buy a bigger ex council house which will mean I will no longer have to claim housing benefit as I am unable to work due to disability. My housing benefit now is £5k a year, imagine if I live for another 30 years that is £150k that I will save the state at today's prices. Why should someone have to sell their home to fund what is in the most crap care in rubbish care homes when someone who owns a £500k home will have to pay less than 20% of the value of their home?

It would be better if everyone from when they started work paid a deduction like you do for workplace pensions towards care when you eventually need it, either to the state or to an insurance company, it could be tax deductible like pension contributions & you could pay extra payments if you wanted to so you would have enough in your account for better care or a better care home. If the fund is never used it could be paid to the person's family after their death. Anyone who hasn't a fund just gets very basic care & care home provided by the state.

@Nat6999 there is a new health & social care tax, I don't think people are going to be able to give up anymore of their income.

If the fund is never used it could be paid to the person's family after their death. Anyone who hasn't a fund just gets very basic care & care home provided by the state.

And if you don't use it & it goes to the family instead what funds those without a fund?

My father has had Parkinson's for 18 years, for the last 5 years he has been unable to stand or walk and is effectively bed/chair bound.

We have done everything to try to keep Dad at home as that's what he wants and he is 'happy' to pay. That now amounts to over £5000 a month in carers costs not including normal bills. Our carers are amazing and have become part of the family as we spend many hours there a week too doing his shopping/cleaning/gardening/ maintenance of his home.

It can be exhausting and depressing and there have been many moments of drama, need for ambulances, emergency repairs, let alone the endless issues with medical support access, it all has had a massive impact on us all.

Whilst my Dad is 'happy' to pay and has equity released to do so - it's shocking to pay any sort of bill each month that's £5000 as when else do we ever spend that sum of money on anything? He is philosophical and jokes he no longer owns the upstairs of his property.

He is only 74 and has been widowed for nearly 18 years, Parkinson's has destroyed physically who he was and what he enjoyed doing but he jokes sometimes it would be nice to spend the care costs on something a bit more fun for a change.

I think families dealing with any sort of long term care whether a child or an adult know how hard the financial and emotional impact are.

Its natural parents want to financially help their children/grandchildren and I think it must be quite hard to see all your assets and savings go completely as my Dads probably will. We try to reassure him that's not important.

ronniz add say 5% on to workplace pension contributions, give tax relief like pension payments, the Health & social care levy can go towards basic care & the personal contributions go towards anything else, make it compulsory, if someone pays from age 20 to retirement age then it will amount to a good size pot to cover care & care home fees, make a base rate for lower earners up to £75k & a higher rate for higher earners.