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.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

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.

I’m not suggesting that you should feel remotely guilty. Just pointing out the logical inconsistency in the post I quoted - getting cross at the suggestion that any property wealth could possibly be partly down to luck at the same time as planning for exactly that scenario for their kids - property ownership only possible because of parental wealth.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/build-back-better-our-plan-for-health-and-social-care/adult-social-care-charging-reform-further-details

@RockingMyFiftiesNot Double taxing happens all the time: you pay once through PAYE, then again through VAT. I don't see any difference in the double taxing here.

[quote mellicauli]@RockingMyFiftiesNot Double taxing happens all the time: you pay once through PAYE, then again through VAT. I don't see any difference in the double taxing here.[/quote]
Not sure you were talking about the same thing I was?

I don't generally think the young can afford higher taxation due to cost of living. Which is why a tax of inheritance from a home makes more sense.

People selling their homes for care are not always 'elderly' My Dad was 57 when he first diagnosed with Parkinson's in his late 60s when he first needed to equity release to cover care costs after first using all his savings. He is now down to his last amount. He didn't qualify for funding for bathroom adaption or stair lifts which cost £1000s and now both unusable.

We agree he has to pay towards his care but the ratio of cost is so high and proportional so much higher than say child care costs for example (his care in his own home). To see the whole value of your home £300000 go in just a short number of years is frustrating when it took 30 years to pay for.

He's beyond caring as that's not his priory but it certainly a unique feeling seeing £5000 go out your back account each month.

I genuinely believe it's criminal to strip an elderly person of their home to fund their care.

Why do they need their home if they are in care?? It's hardly "criminal" to expect them to fund care if they can afford it, and if that means selling their house so be it.

It's not right that someone who has worked and saved hard should have to foot a bill that people that have never paid tax in their lives don't have to pay.

@AndreaC67

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.

I totally agree that the billions wasted on those things would be better spent funding social care, but it's not nearly as flashy headline catcher is it?

I know only too well how paying care workers more would benefit, I am one, maybe I could have afforded my own home to pay for my care myself, being paid a decent wage could have enabled me to 'do the right' thing, seeing as it would seem the only measure of that is owning a house, not any of the reasons why you can't or may never do - even if that's delivering the care that someone else needs, and someone else again is benefitting from financially, whether that be government not paying enough, or the companies making profits.
I'll be the person in the next bed getting my care paid for, guess that makes me a scrounger according to several on here and having done the 'wrong' thing entirety, apparently.
But hey, the self funded bed next to me gets to feel aggrieved at my free ride, never considering I may have earned it in other ways by supporting social care myself physically.

It's not right that someone who has worked and saved hard should have to foot a bill that people that have never paid tax in their lives don't have to pay.

It it really as binary as that though? That those who can't pay have never paid tax or saved & those that have assets so can pay have worked hard & paid plenty into the system? I doubt it.

I suppose I believe this is something we should all care about improving as we will all be elderly one day (if we're very lucky). Whether you self fund or not it massively needs improvement in the care provision to all. The likelihood of needing care is unfortunately rising due to increase in Degenerative illness rapidly rising especially Dementia. Depression is very common in Patients with these types of illness but they can have an improved quality of life with the right care. But if funding isn't there it doesn't happen. This is not a them or us situation this is all of us.

Because usually its crap care, dreadful food and pants quality of life and your home is paying for this.
Then it gets swept up in rich bankers hedge funds in cayman.
Whilst your left thirsty in your room by harrased and over worked badly treated staff.

And.. If I don't recognise myself, let alone my family I don't really want to go on living!! I'd rather be able to choose now legally, that when I get to x point I'd like to humanly be killed.

Because usually its crap care, dreadful food and pants quality of life and your home is paying for this.
Then it gets swept up in rich bankers hedge funds in cayman.
Whilst your left thirsty in your room by harrased and over worked badly treated staff.

All I can say is I'm very glad I don't live in the UK, as none of this tallies with my experience of rest homes (as they are callled here).

Don’t forget that this care bill is literally worse for the lower- middle earners. My mum pays for care in her own home as she has savings. Under the current system she would not have to sell her home to pay for care in it, only if she goes into a care home. In the new system she has to pay 86k in or out of a care home and would have to organise the proceeds from her house sale post death go to the council. This is literally more burden added for those in their own home.
My mum is elderly, saved hard and had a fairly nice standard of living with my dad and pre care bills. Now I am racing through her savings as not only is it 425 per week care in the home she obviously has to pay general bills - I worry when she fancies something she used to be able to buy no problem if the council will deem it reasonable costs when her savings reach the cut off. She is not profligate and she can’t go anywhere but she just ordered some wine and books for example that aren’t the cheapest. My aim is not to worry her about cash at all but it is a bit of a concern for her family to enable her continuing life as best she can enjoy it.
I have looked at continuing healthcare and the line is a bit odd between no charge if medical and pay if social as there is the argument that my mum would suffer medically without the care calls.
It’s simple if you have no house or savings now and going forwards, it’s also simple under the new bill if you have a high value home as you write off a proportion of that, it’s those in the middle that continue to struggle- particularly those further north with homes that are often around 100k.

All I can say is I'm very glad I don't live in the UK, as none of this tallies with my experience of rest homes (as they are callled here).

I'm sure there are some homes like that but it doesn't tally with the two MIL was in either.

stairway

Narutocrazyfox everyone pays into the system but it isn’t enough

Not everyone pays into the system.

And for some of those that do pay into the system when they need the system it fails them so they have to pay again to buy their own healthcare.

Imaginary scenario

Single property owner goes into a home for let's estimate 5- 10 years.
If the property was not sold, it would be left empty or rented out to help pay care fees.
Someone would need to be responsible for the property & pay bills like

Does it make sense to be in care & keep a property?

Kennykenkencat those that don’t pay much are likely to be the poorest in society and generally have to lowest life expectancy and use the nhs less in their lifetime. The country’s wealth is in its houses mainly owned by the older generation. If this income is not used the youth of today will be financially crippled.

stairway

those that don’t pay much are likely to be the poorest in society and generally have to lowest life expectancy and use the nhs less in their lifetime. The country’s wealth is in its houses mainly owned by the older generation. If this income is not used the youth of today will be financially crippled

The people I know who rent either privately or through the council and work just enough to claim everything don’t look like the poorest members of society.
And isn’t the aim that you don’t live long enough to need to go into one if these homes no matter how much or how little money you have.

I think the only way round this is to take out a humongous life insurance policy when you are young, live life to the fullest and take a long walk off a short pier when you realise your mind or body is going.

@ItsDinah

The problem is that if you don't own your own home or other assets, your care will be paid for by the government. If someone is very wealthy this won't bother them. If someone has scrimped and worked hard to acquire savings/house, they will feel hard done by if they have to pay while someone who had similar earnings but did not save does not. This is particularly so as in many parts of the UK, private payers have to pay as much as double what the local authority pays for exactly the same care and accommodation in the same care home. They are in effect subsidising the publicly funded.

This. We pay tax and national insurance all our lives to pay for care. I would really like to be able to give my children something after I am gone. I don't think it's unreasonable.

NannyOggsWhiskyStash the problem is we have an ageing population. It’s not possible for the younger working generations to carry on funding the NHS and social care on their wages alone. The money has to come from another source and inheritance seems the best option.

We pay tax and national insurance all our lives to pay for care. Many people make the mistake of thinking that NI pays for care: it does not. Most people have to pay some or all of the costs of care out of their own pockets. The very poorest get help from their local council, but only enough to pay for often low quality provision. A decent care home can cost as much as £2000 a week and even having someone come to your own home for a couple of hours a day can come to £16,800 a year.

You shouldn’t be able to gift property to an adult child unless they live there as your carer or have additional needs.
Also, people shouldn’t be able to inherit nigh on £1million before paying IHT (due to nil rate bands and such) .

Where I'm from the price of care homes is a % on your pension. And the same with childcare. Because this is what I'm used to, I find the prices to be insane and the idea of having to sell everything just to get support for some reason does not sit well with me. I don't have a reason and I'm not thinking about inheritance.

[quote Narutocrazyfox]@emmagrundyforpm I feel for anyone who wants to get onto the property ladder but can't. But what's your point?

The op was talking specifically about selling your home to pay for care. Something I'm (along with many others) am not prepared to do.[/quote]
Better keep on the right side of your kids or you might find yourself homeless.