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.

@Comedycook

it’s a purpose to work hard to then be able to leave your children something. If that purpose doesn’t exist and you’re forced to pay for everything then the incentive won’t be there to buy a house

I bought a house because I needed somewhere to live

Have you got kids?

@BorgQueen

Just to put one common myth to bed - if your spouse needs a care home, your home’s value is disregarded, as is half their personal (not state) pension pot. You will not have to sell your home or have a charging order put on it to fund your spouse’s care.

Thank you @BorgQueen just last week I had someone say on the phone they didn’t know how they’d cope when their dh came home from respite care, but he had to come back because they couldn’t afford to pay and didn’t want to have to sell the house

I wish there was more out there in the media and general popular culture, tv programmes etc so that people had a greater understanding of the system

Also goes for the shock and upset people feel when told their relative might have to move care homes when they’ve depleted their own funds and are asking the council to pay

@BlueCarnation

You have to understand that some people just can't bear the idea that people they view as lesser should get anything when they 'deserve it more'...
and that you must be stupid if you don't agree.
Some predictable but depressing posts here. What happened to supporting those in need?

I think it's a hot issue for two reasons:

1. Property values are so disproportionate in this country. Inheritance is a lottery, if your parent dies suddenly you get a huge asset, if they have degenerative diseases and need lots of care you get nothing.

1. We don't value care work enough, I think subconsciously we still think of it as something women should provide for free.

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

It's not just medical care in a hospital though. They are living in a care home...there are living costs, gas, electric, water, food...then care on top of that. The elderly aren't charged for a hospital stay just as the young aren't.

If the purpose of a house is to save money for your children, no wonder house prices are so screwed

I have children, I don't feel the need to scrounge off the state so I can give then lots of inheritance

Have you got kids?

Yes and if I can leave them my house, then great. I don't think I should live in my old age entirely subsidised by the tax payer to protect my asset

A lot of pp's saying "care" should be proivded by the NHS. Old people aren't necessarily "ill". They can just be old. They are still treated for free for their many ailments, and prescriptions.

My DM, bless her, was of the view that the whole point of building up an estate, was that she would have the freedom of choice to do what she wished with HER money. So she had live in carers for a while, and then went in to a home. She chose her care home, and paid the bills in full. She didn't have dementia, she didn't really have any illness, she was just very old. She also paid for private health insurance up to about 85, when it got prohibitive, and literally paid 10's of thousands for dental care. Good for her for paying her own way.

I agree
My Mums house is hers until she no longer needs it and if she needs it to be sold so she can use the money for care or anything else then that’s as it should be.
Nobody is entitled to inheritance and people who want to inherit their parents home when the parent needs care should provide the care themselves

As a previous poster said, it’s just a natural progression.
As a young adult you ant to leave the family home, so you work and save and buy one. You don’t expect the state to do it for you.
You meet and partner and you want to buy a place together - bigger as there’s 2 of you now - so again you pay for a bigger place. You don’t expect the state to do it.
Then you have kids so you want somewhere bigger with a garden - again you pay, not the state.
Then your kids leave home and have kids, and you want to move nearer to where they live, which might be more expensive, so your sell your house to pay for it. Again, it’s not the state’s job to pay.
Then you need someone to help you wash and dress, so you pay for carers to come in.
Then you can’t manage at home any more, so you need to move into a care home, so you sell up and put your money into the care home costs instead. Just like you did when you upgraded from your first house to your second.
Why should being old and frail mean that suddenly the state should foot the bill.
And of course, the option is always there to never work, never buy a house, never have any assets. Then the state will pick up the tab. So it’s win win really.

@Comedycook

Have you got kids?

Yes and if I can leave them my house, then great. I don't think I should live in my old age entirely subsidised by the tax payer to protect my asset

Seconded.

If people know the rules, they can spend or give away their money as they get older, thus avoiding paying for care if needed. If they choose to gamble and stockpile it instead and end up having to use it to pay for care well that's unfortunate and they've only themselves to blame. You make your choice knowing the rules.
As it is, social services (i.e. Other taxpayers) step in and start subsidising your care fees once you've got around £23k. £23k!!! This figure should be slashed to just enough to cover funeral costs plus a bit more, say £10k. Would save us many millions. The money saved could be put into other areas, children's protective services for example.
The system is already collapsing WITH people funding their own care (although some benefits for the elderly such as AA aren't even means tested!). God knows how much more of a mess we'd be in if we didn't.
We all want to live as long as possible. Modern medicine has enabled that. This is what happens.

Old people will just splurge their savings on cruises etc too make the most of their savings as there is little incentive to save to pass on to future generations.

@bordermidgebite

If the purpose of a house is to save money for your children, no wonder house prices are so screwed

I have children, I don't feel the need to scrounge off the state so I can give then lots of inheritance

No, the ideal of buying a house is the security and knowing that when the term ends, you don’t have to keep making payments.

If you always rent, you’ll always have to pay rent. How does an 80 year old pay rent? If they haven’t got savings? They’ll get government help, whereas a homeowner wouldn’t need the financial assistance.

If you rent, you’ll never have anything to leave your children (other than capital) at least if you buy a house, the hope is you don’t need to go in to a care home!

I agree with you.

Ask yourself who should pay for your care? Surely it yourself and not people who are currently working and paying taxes?

@Ifailed

It goes against the fundamental idea of what the NHS stands for, which is that care is free for everyone at the point of service.

No it doesn't. The NHS was never meant to provide 'care', it was set up to provide a health service based on clinical need, not ability to pay.

Having a hotel-type stay is not clinic need, if we wish to provide a National Care Service then that is a separate requirement that should be funded accordingly. No government is going to introduce a solely tax-payer funded care system, it would kill them in an election if everyone's income tax raised by, say, 15%.

Many people who have dementia (or other age-related conditions) cannot safely live alone, so for them, 24/7 care IS a clinical night.

What else do you think it is?

@Comedycook

Have you got kids?

Yes and if I can leave them my house, then great. I don't think I should live in my old age entirely subsidised by the tax payer to protect my asset

I don’t think anyone is suggesting no one should have to pay for their care on old age, but most people would like to leave money for their children if possible.

Owning my own home - and having profited from unearned property wealth due to house price inflation - gives me choices others don’t have, if misfortune strikes.

If I lose my job and go through a long period of unemployment, it gives me a cushion - I can downsize and live off the equity for a while; I don’t expect the state to subsidise it beyond baseline benefits when I have a valuable asset.

If my husband dies and my household income dips significantly, I have options that cushion the blow that non-home owners may not have.

If I become incapacitated and can no longer work, we can again downsize and the equity would give us a cushion, I would not expect the state to protect the equity in my home for my kids in that case.

And similarly, if in my old age I need expensive and complex care, I know that the current system and the demographics of our population make it nearly impossible to fund everyone’s care. I know that my assets and in particular the unearned wealth I’ve had as a homeowner in the UK gives me greater choice, and I do not expect the full value of my valuable asset should be preserved for my children, while other people’s children who may not have been so fortunate as I was in terms of employment or home ownership have to pay higher taxes to fully fund my care.

@NeedAHoliday2021

Old people will just splurge their savings on cruises etc too make the most of their savings as there is little incentive to save to pass on to future generations.

Exactly.

I think a lot of people confuse care costs when medical costs. Medical treatment remains free regardless of age or diagnosis. Care homes provide the care you would previously have done yourself, or you family would have done - like washing, dressing, feeding, going to the toilet, getting into bed etc.
And plenty of people with cancer and MS end up in care homes, it’s not just the very elderly, so there’s no discrimination . They’re basically for people who can’t manage in a home environment.

most people would like to leave money for their children if possible

Of course but we could apply this attitude to anything. Should the elderly be entitled to free food and utilities so that they don't spend their own money and can leave it to their kids?

1. Because many people scrimp and save to buy a house, going without many things in life to afford one. But someone who didn't do that, who spent their money on other things, get social care on the government with no financial penalty.

2. Because if that person was ill with a terminal illness, they wouldn't have to pay for their care - it would via the NHS, which is taxpayer funded. So many say why should social care and the kind of care that people need when they've got a condition like dementia be self-funded when treatment and care for those with cancer, heart disease, etc is funded by the government?

What it means is that you're penalised if you're financially prudent and unlucky enough to need social care in your old age.

@Bagamoyo1

I think a lot of people confuse care costs when medical costs. Medical treatment remains free regardless of age or diagnosis. Care homes provide the care you would previously have done yourself, or you family would have done - like washing, dressing, feeding, going to the toilet, getting into bed etc. And plenty of people with cancer and MS end up in care homes, it’s not just the very elderly, so there’s no discrimination . They’re basically for people who can’t manage in a home environment.

Typically people who can't manage in a home environment are that way because of their medical needs, though - be they cognitive decline, dementia, Parkinsons, cancer, ME or any other number of illnesses and disabilities.

@alexdgr8

dementia is a progressive terminal disease. we have a nhs. why are people suffering cancer or heart disease or MS etc not forced to sell their homes to pay for care. that resident daughter may have spent years caring for her mother in her home, getting less than £10 a day in carer's allowance, if she is lucky. there is very little support for family carers. they save the govt millions. then they are pitched out. homeless. probably had to give up work to care for relative, day and night, now too old to get a job, or a mortgage. no priority for social housing. i think people who have not had experience of this have no idea what it is like. imagine having a large heavy toddler, who has to be constantly supervised, fed and washed, inco pads changed in the bed, turned to avoid pressure sores, who may be violent at times, and who regresses, able to do/understand less and less. forgets who you are. whom you love. and doing that all alone usually, day and night. and constant battles with HCPs, to maintain best medical condition. continence care, skin care, all monitoring, soft food, spoon feeding. cannot just pop out, never go on holiday. then if social services intervene and say this relative must go into a nursing home, house sold, family carer tipped out on to street. no one cares for the carer. and the relative while they can still speak, saying thinking at least devoted daughter will be safely housed, even if poor, a roof over their head. that they can, will, want to, leave house to daughter. but they can't. i know whereof i speak. it is a national disgrace. the whole system.

This. 100%

Old people will just splurge their savings on cruises etc too make the most of their savings as there is little incentive to save to pass on to future generations.

Then they're idiots. Having money made life so much easier for my PILs. They could afford to pay for carers to come in to cook, do stuff round the house, take MIL out on shopping trips etc. And when my FIL died it meant that my DH could bypass SS and just find her a lovely care home that she helped to choose. She is taken out on day trips and the activities co-ordinator runs all sorts of events. I cannot imagine that this happens in homes where councils are paying about £400 a week.