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.

Narutocrazyfox everyone pays into the system but it isn’t enough. Hopefully you won’t need care but I don’t think there is any guarantees of inheritance for your children. If enough wealthy homeowners try and dodge the system loopholes will be closed or the government will just massively increase inheritance tax.

Should inheritance tax not be increased anyway to help even things out a bit?

And why is it such a black or white issue for people ? Is there not a middle ground?

@maverickess where does the money for care come from for those with no assets currently? That's where I expect it to come from.

I'm not being flippant here - I genuinely believe it's criminal to strip an elderly person of their home to fund their care. If you have savings/additional assets, then I agree you should be helping to fund your care, but your home should always be protected.

[quote Narutocrazyfox]@maverickess where does the money for care come from for those with no assets currently? That's where I expect it to come from.

I'm not being flippant here - I genuinely believe it's criminal to strip an elderly person of their home to fund their care. If you have savings/additional assets, then I agree you should be helping to fund your care, but your home should always be protected.[/quote]
That comes from the tax payer, and if we funded everyone's care from it then we'd be needing to raise taxes quite a bit I would think in order to cover that - increasing the tax burden on the generation that's working when we're at an age we may need social care. It's got to be paid for one way or another.
I agree that the system currently is rubbish, part funded by government, part funded by the 'customer', mostly run by private firms with profit at the heart of it, but really the provision, on the floor, that determines the level of care isn't good enough imo, whether that be because the money going in isn't enough or the money isn't getting where it's needed most is hotly debated, but the reality is social care needs to be paid for, and ideally paid more for in total so that standards improve and workers in the social care system don't end up in the position of caring for others for a pittance and then being maligned for not being able to afford to fund it themselves.

There should be a ban on care companies making a profit from care, both home care & care homes. Too many care companies are making a mint out of elderly & disabled people who are vulnerable, provide sub standard care & pay their staff minimum wage. My ex husband has carers as he is badly disabled by MS, if he has a fall they aren't trained to get him up even though he has an electric hoist, they just ring ds as first contact & expect him to do it, ds is 17 & isn't trained either but that doesn't matter as if anything goes wrong he can't be sued. He has sometimes been on the floor for up to 19 hours.

What I don’t understand is why, if you can raise ‘enough’ with a capped contribution of £80k from those unfortunate enough to fall ill or become too infirm to remain in their own home, you can’t raise the same amount as a much smaller ‘death tax’ on everyone, levied as a proportion of their estate.

Figmentofmyimagination

What I don’t understand is why, if you can raise ‘enough’ with a capped contribution of £80k from those unfortunate enough to fall ill or become too infirm to remain in their own home, you can’t raise the same amount as a much smaller ‘death tax’ on everyone, levied as a proportion of their estate

Because where there is a tax there is a tax loop hole and you would find that those who are supposed to be paying it are not and it is left to those who don’t have tax accountants at their disposal to not only to pay the original taxation but also the shortfall.

@Kennykenkencat

Figmentofmyimagination

What I don’t understand is why, if you can raise ‘enough’ with a capped contribution of £80k from those unfortunate enough to fall ill or become too infirm to remain in their own home, you can’t raise the same amount as a much smaller ‘death tax’ on everyone, levied as a proportion of their estate

Because where there is a tax there is a tax loop hole and you would find that those who are supposed to be paying it are not and it is left to those who don’t have tax accountants at their disposal to not only to pay the original taxation but also the shortfall.

This kind of taxation would be a fairer option to aim for but would need to able to resist accountants finding loopholes.

The issue with death taxes is that most peoples estates are very small, the majority leaving little or nothing. Other inheritances are between husband and wife, you can't tax that. So, you are once again relying on a small proportion of the population to pick up the bill for everyone else. It's all very well to say the rich should always pay, but there is never enough of them to pick up the bill for the rest, the majority, of the population.

That comes from the tax payer, and if we funded everyone's care from it then we'd be needing to raise taxes quite a bit I would think in order to cover that - increasing the tax burden on the generation that's working when we're at an age we may need social care. It's got to be paid for one way or another

Have understood this argument.
We are spending 100s of billions on railways, track and trace, nuclear weapons and billions more on higher rate pension tax relief.

Yet cannot afford to pay carers a decent wage and expect people who have done the right thing and saved for a house to sell it to pay for their last year or two of care.

Increased carers wages also benefits their communities as they spend it in their locality, pensions are invested worldwide.

Should read - have never understood this argument...sorry

@CHIRIBAYA

I agree. I wany my children to inherit because that is the only way they will ever be able to afford a home and pay off astronomical student debt. People should not be made to feel ashamed for wanting to support their children; I certainly don't and if others want to abandon theirs to fate, then I wish them all the luck in the world as according to this thread, that is what gets you a home and assets.

To be fair, you are advocating that your children should get the ability to buy a house based entirely on luck - the luck of being born to parents who own property.

A 5% tax on estates over £100000 would raise something ?!

To be fair, you are advocating that your children should get the ability to buy a house based entirely on luck - the luck of being born to parents who own property.

I was able to pay off my mortgage due to inheriting from my Mum. I know I'm lucky (although I would rather Mum was still here or had used every penny on care instead of dying in hospital) but I don't feel remotely guilty.

@itisthecause

A 5% tax on estates over £100000 would raise something ?!

Houses left as part of an estate should be taxed as if they were a Capital gain, so 20% on the amount the asset i.e house has increased by, minus any expenses, get rid of the IHT threshold or certainly reduce it

Once the gain goes over a milllion, tax that at 30%, 2 milllion 40%.

I inherited 450k without lifting a finger, zero tax but its even better than that, i invested it, set up an ISA, transfer into the ISA, draw down from the ISA.... pay no tax on investment gains.....its like the system is set up to protect the wealthy!!!

No expensive FA needed, my bank did it for me.

This cannot be right, even as a gainer i can see that.

@HelloDulling

Why should care in old age be treated (funded) any differently than say cancer treatment in a much younger person?

Care isn’t just medical treatment though. The costs of being in a care home include rent for your room, someone to do your food shopping/cooking/serving, cleaning, laundry, personal care. Any medical treatment is on top of that. When my friend had her chemo, she was still paying her mortgage, cleaner, food bills etc herself.

No, but if your friend with cancer, had needed social care, because she could not look after herself - say she needed 2 carers visiting 4 times a day, to get her up, dressed, bathed and 3 meals, then she could have got it for free, through NHS Continuing Health Care Funding, even if she were a multimillionaire. Or, say care at home still wasn't enough, and she needed to go into a nursing home; then the NHS would have paid the all fees for her, under Continuing Health Care Funding, to cover the rent, food, heating, cleaning, personal care (like help with washing, cooking, whatever) and the nursing care. It wouldn't matter that she had her own house; she would not be required to sell it. In fact, she could rent it out and keep the income for herself, on top of her benefits such as PIP, which she would be fast tracked for.

[quote Thursdaymiami]@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[/quote]
Where did I say that?

I am not wasting my time, answering posts that are putting 2 and 2 together to make 10.

@Comedycook

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...

Where did I say that?

I am not wasting my time, answering posts from people, who put 2 and 2 together to make 10.

We signed our home over to our kids when we were in our early fifties.
Just the same as my P.I.L signed theirs over to my DH when they were in their early sixties.

UK is unusual because some people rent, or have council houses, so have little/no equity, whereas others have mortgages, so have equity. Some don't like the fact that they've saved and are then penalised for doing so.

If you had spent your life being careful with money, buying your own home - but your neighbours earned the same as you but chose to rent and spend all their cash on plastic surgery and Gucci clothes.

You both end up in the same care home, which they get for free. But they are sitting there, looking good and it seems like you have been punished for your carefulness, having nothing to hand on to your children and nothing to show for the sacrifices you made.

I really understand this but I think taxing the dead is always the best option. We've taxed the young quite enough.

@OhGiveUp

We signed our home over to our kids when we were in our early fifties. Just the same as my P.I.L signed theirs over to my DH when they were in their early sixties.

do you pay them rent?

[quote Narutocrazyfox]@maverickess where does the money for care come from for those with no assets currently? That's where I expect it to come from.

I'm not being flippant here - I genuinely believe it's criminal to strip an elderly person of their home to fund their care. If you have savings/additional assets, then I agree you should be helping to fund your care, but your home should always be protected.[/quote]
why? They can't continue to live there so its no longer their home. That's sad but its a fact.

really understand this but I think taxing the dead is always the best option. We've taxed the young quite enough.

You do realise that 'the dead' were young and taxed once already?

For me its an issue because the person sitting next to my aunt (who pays over £1200 a week -£250k so far and spent nearly a year of that locked in her room) is paying £0. That's the one and only issue.