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’ve always wondered why some older generation folk keep hold of so much cash. They talk about not wanting to pay for care but yet won’t give any of it away before they die despite having no intention of spending it. It’s almost like a hobby. How frugal can we be? My mum is in that bracket. Would let her clothes go in holes before buying new ones, sits in the cold and won’t give a penny away despite having loads.

Personally I would increase IHT rates to encourage more freeing up of assets. I’m sure it would benefit the economy if money was passed down earlier.

@Kennykenkencat

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.

The quantity over quality of life is certainly the elephant in the room. My parents have always been quite clear - they don’t want to spend years in care homes. Once their quality of life has deteriorated on their own terms they want to go. Mum works in a hospital so she’s definitely seen a lot. What’s the point she says of surviving, not living?

OTOH there are people born so disabled that they can’t live independently, we aren’t killing them off are we? They’re however in much smaller numbers and unless there’s a radioactive leak or similar we’re not going to have large numbers. Unlike people living long enough to develop degenerative diseases.

This thread has inspired me to go off and gather data on then numbers

Yes I think in the past people did the care themselves. Then they get the house passed on. Fair enough.

But you can’t expect to be able to pass that caring on to others and still inherit all of your parents’ wealth. Makes no sense!

Plus, life expectancy was shorter say 50 years ago. Nowadays, most of us assume we'll live into our 80's and unfortunately, the likelihood of developing dementia, for example, increases with age. So more of us will need care.

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

Is it also criminal to "strip" a younger family of their (small) home in order to fund them paying for a larger one to suit their needs?

You buy/pay for the home you need. If someone (elderly or otherwise) owns a property that no longer meets their needs, then they need to sell it to fund something (care home/sheltered housing perhaps) that does.
When did all the emotive heartstring-pulling come in?

@CallmeHendricks

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

Is it also criminal to "strip" a younger family of their (small) home in order to fund them paying for a larger one to suit their needs?

You buy/pay for the home you need. If someone (elderly or otherwise) owns a property that no longer meets their needs, then they need to sell it to fund something (care home/sheltered housing perhaps) that does.
When did all the emotive heartstring-pulling come in?

This is an useful point - when we talk about paying for care we lump all the aspects together - the caring aspect along with the housing, and it obscures the fact that if you go into a care home, that’s the place where you now live. You may not want it to be your home, sure. But it is.

There is really no other time in life where someone with assets and means would expect the state to pay for their primary residence.

I can get on board with the state paying for the care aspect, or parts of it. And I completely understand the frustration of paying residents massively subsidising because the state underfunds places.

But the housing aspect seems important to me. Regardless of whether they want to or not, and whether it’s nice or not, that’s where they live now. It’s their home, and it doesn’t seem unreasonable to contribute to the cost of the place they live.

There are people receiving care in their own home that will have to have a delayed payment for care via the cash their house fetches post death. This is not the case now, though you use any savings of course to pay, but you never had to pay the proceeds of your home as well. The new bill solves that one. This is not just about selling your home as you’ve gone into a care home under the new bill.

@MsJinks

There are people receiving care in their own home that will have to have a delayed payment for care via the cash their house fetches post death. This is not the case now, though you use any savings of course to pay, but you never had to pay the proceeds of your home as well. The new bill solves that one. This is not just about selling your home as you’ve gone into a care home under the new bill.

And I think that’s quite a different argument, as I said in my post.

Its not just the ' never worked a day in their life' group getting it for free though is it.
2 identical people, same job, same earnings, one did without at times and bought their home, bought a 2nd hand car etc and the other chose to rent, leased expensive cars and pissed every penny they had up against the wall - both will be cared for in their old age but one will not pay a penny towards it whereas the other will.

@user1471447863

Its not just the ' never worked a day in their life' group getting it for free though is it. 2 identical people, same job, same earnings, one did without at times and bought their home, bought a 2nd hand car etc and the other chose to rent, leased expensive cars and pissed every penny they had up against the wall - both will be cared for in their old age but one will not pay a penny towards it whereas the other will.

or alternatively, two people, same job, same earnings. One has well-off parents who help with deposit for a house, and then inherits their parents house when parents die. Other person has less well-off parents, no deposit, no inheritance so no property ownership or savings.

Most people whose care home place is funded by the LA has worked all their lives. Where I live, a 3 bed terraced house costs from £400k upwards. My ds works long hours in a manual job. He will never be able to afford to buy.

@emmagrundyforpm exactly. There are so many variables that affect the wealth people end up with. E.g. what about the person who sacrifices their career to care for an elderly parent and ends up having to use their savings to live, what about the farm worker who is low paid and in a tied cottage etc etc. You can be hard working and thrifty and still end up with nothing or you can have the luck of inheritance/massive house price increases, live the life of riley and still end up with ££££.

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.

How does that work when monthly rental payments are higher than mortgage payments?

I think the main issue is that people resent needing social care, and they certainly resent paying for it. I can understand that viewpoint, no one wants to accept decline that leaves you unable to do the things you've done for yourself all your life, or pay for someone else to do it, but unless family are able and willing to do it then it needs to be paid for.
Social Care, like healthcare, runs on a lot of goodwill from the staff, following covid and everything around that and the general attitude towards an area we need, even if we don't want to need it, the good will is running out and we're going to see that bite more and more as demand outweighs supply and nothing changes to address that. There needs to be an attitude change towards social care from society right through to government, that's not going to happen though so these arguments will rumble on, service users will continue to get a raw deal and care workers will continue to burn out or leave for better terms in other industries, and the fact that the government think a few TV adverts and raising NI (which I believe SC won't see for 3 years) will change anything shows how no one is listening.

@Blossomtoes

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.

How does that work when monthly rental payments are higher than mortgage payments?

The ones that bought are then being penalised for being financially astute ans those that didn't but could have are being rewarded for being financially careless?

The ones that bought are then being penalised for being financially astute ans those that didn't but could have are being rewarded for being financially careless?

I think you’re missing the point I made.

@Maverickess

I think the main issue is that people resent needing social care, and they certainly resent paying for it. I can understand that viewpoint, no one wants to accept decline that leaves you unable to do the things you've done for yourself all your life, or pay for someone else to do it, but unless family are able and willing to do it then it needs to be paid for. Social Care, like healthcare, runs on a lot of goodwill from the staff, following covid and everything around that and the general attitude towards an area we need, even if we don't want to need it, the good will is running out and we're going to see that bite more and more as demand outweighs supply and nothing changes to address that. There needs to be an attitude change towards social care from society right through to government, that's not going to happen though so these arguments will rumble on, service users will continue to get a raw deal and care workers will continue to burn out or leave for better terms in other industries, and the fact that the government think a few TV adverts and raising NI (which I believe SC won't see for 3 years) will change anything shows how no one is listening.

Plenty of people don’t want social care no matter who provides it - they’d rather go on their own terms.

There are ways around it.

Euthanasia will most likely be legal in the near future.

If I'm lucky enough to make old age I'll bail out when I can no longer look after myself independently.

Plenty of people don’t want social care no matter who provides it - they’d rather go on their own terms.

I agree, but I think we're a long way off that at the moment. Don't get me wrong the very worst part of working in social care is seeing people lose their quality of life. When family feel nothing but relief that someone has died then someone has suffered too long. But, when we're giving 90 odd year olds with several comorbidities and dementia treatment that prolongs life, I think we're realistically a long way away from euthanasia for elderly people and those with dementia.
Advance directives need to be better I think and more people need to have these discussions, and a shift in how they're viewed.
Until then the resentment is misplaced towards those that can't afford their own care - they may well want to go on their own terms too.

user1471447863

Blossomtoes
“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• *

How does that work when monthly rental payments are higher than mortgage payments

But is rent more when you are getting housing benefits?
I know people who have all their rent overestimate by HB.
You can get HB on your rent. You can’t get it on your mortgage unless you go on UC and wait 10 months and jump through a load of hoops and then it is only on the interest.

All their rent covered

Kennykenkencat I gather you are not a long term renter? Really being a renter all your life is pretty grim unless it’s council housing. Those that haven’t bought their council house by the time they retire are likely to be on very low incomes. People on low incomes have generally lower life expectancy and suffer from health inequalities. It’s nothing to be envious of.

@Kennykenkencat

user1471447863

Blossomtoes
“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• *

How does that work when monthly rental payments are higher than mortgage payments

But is rent more when you are getting housing benefits?
I know people who have all their rent overestimate by HB.
You can get HB on your rent. You can’t get it on your mortgage unless you go on UC and wait 10 months and jump through a load of hoops and then it is only on the interest.

If you’re reliant on benefits, you’re hardly going to be spending money at Gucci and the plastic surgeon, are you? Benefits are for people with nothing.

Rent might be more than mortgage, but once you factor in building insurance, and yearly maintenance boiler, roof, decorating, gutters, flooring, shed roof... oh and the big stuff new bathrooms /kitchens / patio. Average it out & equates to rental prices. Yes you dont have to do the house maintenance but after a while it will start to fall apart.
Those people who own reduce the burden on the state but they seem to get little financial advantage for doing so. Yes a house can increase in value but that only releases cold hard cash if you buy somewhere cheaper .

Could I invoice my elderly parent for the care I give & collect the money from the estate after they die

Those people who own reduce the burden on the state

Do they? What’s the rationale for that?