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.

Because people who chose not to work, that get handouts all their life, thanks to my hard work and my relatives hard work.

You can't generalise like that. I have a home, have I worked harder than those that haven't? No I just was helped on to the ladder by parents & prices weren't so crazy then.

Because the NHS - as it was set up - was intended to look after our population from cradle to grave and that's what we're used to. We pay high-ish taxes to fund this so expect in return.

We don't pay anywhere near enough!

@Chely

Many sign their houses over to their children to avoid this. Work hard and pay taxes for most of your life then have to sell your assets to pay for care. A person who paid little to nothing gets the same care free of charge because they have no assets.

This is old but absolutely busts the argument that people have worked hard and paid their taxes so now deserve a comfortable retirement and free care in their old age. Most households actually actually take more out than they put in to the nation's finances.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

@BeautifulBirds

Because people who chose not to work, that get handouts all their life, thanks to my hard work and my relatives hard work. Then at the end of life get the same level of care that costs my family £1k a week, for free! That's why I get cross.

But you can’t just choose not to work and receive benefits. There are endless hoops to jump through.

@ronniz

When the NHS was set up it was advertised as care from the cradle to the grave.

We also have a ageing population & a shrinking tax paying one so it's not sustainable

That would be medical care, not social care.

One thing I can’t get my head around is the outrage people feel regarding paying for your own care when you’re older

It's because if you get cancer all your care is covered by the NHS. If it's because of Parkinsons or dementia (which are medical conditions as well) you have to be really really bad and jump through countless hoops to get care paid for.

Personally I think IHT should increase to pay for social care. Everyone gets 100% of something and then 60% of everything else. Unlike 0% of everything over £23K. There are fairer ways of spreading the load.

A person who paid little to nothing gets the same care free of charge because they have no assets.

@Chely

The end product they enjoy may indeed be the same, but accessing the help is a very, very different process depending on whether you can afford to pay.

DF decided he had become too much of a burden on my mother so that it was time for him to go into a home. One phone call to the nearest care home on a Thursday afternoon, further call to provide financial details to confirm we could pay on the Friday and on Saturday, he had a place to move into, on a one month trial basis.

Compare that to trying to get social services assessments ... well, you can't, can you. There is no sensible comparison.

The state pays roughly half the care home fees for state funded residents. Their pension and attendance allowance that they would have got if living at home also goes into the pot. The remainder of their fees are paid by the self funding residents in the same home. The care is identical. An average care home will have a mixture of self funders and state funded residents and will cost between £800 and £1200 per week.
Care homes depend on the self funders to keep afloat. There are virtually no council run homes any more, they are just not viable.
The very expensive homes are really only available for the seriously rich. My parents were both in the best care homes they could afford and the care really wasn't very good. We did our best to care for them at home as long as possible, but it was really hard.
Aside from that, I do think that the way carers (both family and professional) are treated is appalling. Not just those who care for elderly parents, but parents of children with chronic illness or disabilities.
What grates for me is the fact that the government wastes millions and gives yet more millions to their cronies rather than supporting and investing in social care.

Some people live their lives as net recipients of welfare, others are net contributors. Is this 'fair'? Not entirely - there will always be a proportion of people who are not willing to help themselves.

I don't see how this changes when these people move into care homes - the net contributors continue to contribute and the net recipients continue to receive.

'Because people who chose not to work, that get handouts all their life, thanks to my hard work and my relatives hard work. Then at the end of life get the same level of care that costs my family £1k a week, for free! That's why I get cross.'

I don't know why people go on about those getting 'handouts' like people are having the time of their lives scraping by on benefits.
the money is crap and the system is quite literally there to help those who need it. The people who get the most ££ have kids - those kids need to eat and be clothed just like the rest of us.

My parents worked but we rented on a council state where many people lived off benefits. Not one of those families was better off than us. They often had health issues, mental health issues, drug and alcohol problem, Domestic violence in their lives, and never ever had enough money.
My parents saved and we moved off the estate into our own house.
Many of the kids I grew up with ended up in prison, others are still stuck on that estate struggling to get by on benefits or in low paid jobs.

The NHS does pay from cradle to grave
For medical care
Honestly i think some people really are low in comprehension skills

I agree with you OP.
If you have assets or money to pay for old age care, you should pay for it.

I know people who had to sell their home because they became disabled and could no longer work so could not pay the mortgage. They then had to live off the proceeds until eligible for UC.

Why is aging to be considered special and your assets protected?

@Sugarplumfairy65 yes the NHS is already crumbling. I don't it will exist when I retire & prescriptions certainly won't be free.

My MIL, vascular dementia, alzheimers, frontal lobe shrinkage does not want her home sold to pay for care... not just because she wants to pass on a bit of money to her kids, but because she KNOWS that once it is sold she will only leave the care home in a box.

How depressing is that realisation.

The realisation that all your worldly goods (other than what will fit in your little room at the carehome) are going to be sold, given away, thrown in the bin so that your home can be sold and you will never be capable enough to live alone again.

Selling your home to pay for care means you know you are on the pathway to death, not everyone is ready for that realisation.

We get cradle to grave in terms of medical care. Accidents, illnesses, medications, surgery etc etc.

At what point does an adult no longer have the responsibility of keeping a roof over their head, lights on, heating on, water on and food in their stomach?

I think that's the part people need to change their mindset on. You always get free at the point of use access to doctors and medical care but you should also expect to meet your own living costs for the duration of your life unless you genuinely cannot. And that's cannot, not choose to give your assets away so you have nothing when you need help.

There is, quite rightly, a safety net for those who would otherwise sleep on the streets or starve but it shouldn't be the expectation that regardless your situation you should never have to plan for your old age because you deserve it all for free.

If we carry on with these expectations, demands and efforts to hide wealth then the system will collapse entirely and we'll all be screwed.

I'd like to see the government go after tax dodging big business and the super rich who spend a fortune on accountants who find every way possible to make sure their clients don't pay their fair share.

In this country you have to either be rich or low income. Otherwise, you are screw. There are many benefits for poorer families and still people complain about social injustice.

Taxes are on the high end. There is a lot of hate for the rich and sometimes I wonder if what they mean is for everyone to be poor and helped by the government. I find the outrage about inheritance bizarre. However, care should be paid by the family or pensioner savings not the by state. Care should be a lot less than the cost of a house.

You make sacrifices to pay for your mortgage that are normally detrimental to your family. So if you didn’t need to pay a mortgage you could go on holidays, take the kids out, fill the fridge, but paying the mortgage means you sacrifice something- over years and years. To then loose your home and it not being kept in the family means those sacrifices that you and your family made were for nothing.

The “majority” of working families, after paying bills are not actually better of “spare cash wise” than those who don’t work.

They get care for free.
You and the family that grew up with you get finically penalised as at the end of it, nothing is left.

Could be because some people don’t work a day in their lives therefore when they need care they get it free (benefits takes - £30 a week currently) whereas someone who has worked all their lives, struggled to pay their mortgage etc, paid their taxes has to sell their hard earned home to pay for care.
Don’t see what is so hard to understand about that Unless of course you were being obtuse pretending not to know!!

^This. Just another goady thread.

You need to be stinking rich or very poor, those in the middle get caught out.

Well we're probably about to sell an elderly relative's house to pay for their care. My siblings and I are her only beneficiaries as far as I know. Far from being outraged, I am just very relieved that she will be able to spend her final days in a nice care home.

Just because some people are more worried about their inheritance than the care of their elderly relatives, it doesn't mean that we all are.

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

Because many of those that have bought their own homes have gone without to afford it.
They haven’t claimed a lot of the benefits you list and have looked after themselves and their families sometimes taking any job going to be able to pay a mortgage.

On the other end their are people who have never worked or worked just enough so it doesn’t impact their benefits.
They have had time on their hands to spend with their children or do what ever they want. They haven’t had to get up at 5am and stand at a freezing bus stop in the rain to go to work in order to pay for the roof over their heads, put food on the table, pay their full council tax bill or think about having another child. They have been tucked up in bed and the government have paid them money to be there.
The government will step in to pay for their needs until the day they die and even help with funeral expenses if their family have followed in their footsteps.

But when certain people who have been self sufficient throughout their life, paying taxes to keep the country and the benefit system running. When they want the government to step in to help them they are told they are on their own and to sell anything they have if they want care in old age
But when those who haven’t even tried turn round and say they need care in their old age the government open up their wallet.

It is one thing where no one has any benefits as everyone knows the score. If you are
mentally and physically fit then you know you are on a level playing field with other physically and mentally fit individuals.

Ultimately people will not bother helping themselves as they won’t see a reason to if they see that in the grand scheme of things that killing themselves doing jobs they hate throughout their life if they end up with the same amount as those that sat out in the sun during the summer without having to think about how they are going to get to work in the morning.

We seem even scared to properly explore this. There are lots of very emotive arguments on both sides.
Some people never work, claim benefits all their lives and cost the state an absolute fortune and then get free care in old age. They are the 'takers' who taxpayers pay to support. They never pay into a state old age pension but expect to get one.

Some people are extremely wealthy and can afford to pay for care in old age- so why shouldn't they?

Anyone who has bought a house has made 'a fortune' in unearned cash as the prices have gone up. That's not fair and they shouldn't expect to keep that.

If you bought a house for £150,000 in 1990 on a 5% mortgage over 30 years, you paid back about £290,000.
Let's say you replaced a bathroom and kitchen twice each by re-mortgaging which cost you £60,000 total
double glazing, a new boiler = £8000
a new roof =£10,000
a patio = £6000
Plus say £15,000 for wall-ties, driveway, re-wiring, insulation
Conservatively, without extensions, that £150,000 house has cost you at least £390,000 to buy and maintain without decoration or anything like that, and it's now worth say £430,000- wouldn't be that in some bits of the country but would be more in London. We're hardly talking a 'fortune in unearned wealth'.

As well as buying and maintaining a house, those people work hard, pay taxes, pay into a private pension for their comfort in old age. They have made provisions.

What about people who have a younger family member who needs full time residential care why do they get free care? A grandparent with dementia needing full-time residential care spends a fortune on care - possibly £500,000 over a number of years, but a young adult with a severe learning disability who needs full-time residential care -parents don't pay for that. Why not?

It's no one's fault if they are unable to get a well-paid job and save money to buy a house, pay for a pension- they should not be discriminated against when they are vulnerable and need care.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and their family and not be able to rely on the State other than for the most basic allowance.

It goes on and on, back and forth.

The government have utterly conned people with their care bill. People will still pay an absolute fortune for care. The £86,000 is not a limit- on top of that are care home fees for as long as the person lives- currently a minimum of about £3000 a month but up to £8000 a month or even more. They will only increase as time goes on and we will have to pay for those- think of it as your food and room bill every month. Most people are under the impression that £86,000 is the most they will pay- totally wrong.
The £86,000 only covers personal care eg my aunt has a carer who goes in for 30 minutes every morning and it costs £12 a day or about £360 a month. If she needed them 4 x a day it would cost about £1500 a month. That is what the £86,000 pays for.
When she goes into a home- which she will certainly have to- she will then pay £1100 a week (as her husband did for a year until he died of Covid) or £57000 a year for her food and room until her savings are reduced to the minimum of £25000 or whatever it is. It might take a while as she has her state pension, a small private pension and some of his private pension but at £ 57000 a year it won't take too long.
Care home costs are ridiculous and they line the pockets of care home owners. No one should make a profit from old age care- it should be provided at cost by the state so that those who use it are paying for their care not paying to fill the bank accounts of care home owners.
It does not cost £1100 a week to feed and provide a room for and a carer for an elderly person- who might spend most of their time sitting watching tv.

My grandparents both died renters. My mother will. I probably will. I'd love to have something of momentary value to pass down to my children, a house, a lump sum, something. Receiving inheritance feels like a different world. Nobody in my family would have allowed my grandmother to go into home, I myself would have taken her in if it came down to it but it didn't. The issue is people don't want to care for their parents but also want the money.
To me, it seems sad if for the first time in goodness knows how many generations we lost it due to ill health in old age. But that isn't the position most are in I guess.
People are living longer due to heart medications etc, retirement age pushed back, increase in dementia and elderly needs. It's too damn expensive.

@BeyondMyWits

My MIL, vascular dementia, alzheimers, frontal lobe shrinkage does not want her home sold to pay for care... not just because she wants to pass on a bit of money to her kids, but because she KNOWS that once it is sold she will only leave the care home in a box.

How depressing is that realisation.

The realisation that all your worldly goods (other than what will fit in your little room at the carehome) are going to be sold, given away, thrown in the bin so that your home can be sold and you will never be capable enough to live alone again.

Selling your home to pay for care means you know you are on the pathway to death, not everyone is ready for that realisation.

But that is the reality, BMW.

I always feel the need to point out on these threads that it used to be free. My grandfather had dementia, he went onto a geriatrics ward when he was too far gone for my grandmother to cope. There were care homes, but as discussed, they were expensive and for posh people.

When he died (late 90s) he was one of the last on the ward, which shut down shortly afterwards. Because instead, you were offered a care home place for your relative funded entirely by the state. Why wouldn't you accept the posh option for free? Then once all the NHS long term care wards shut, suddenly it was why should the state pay for your care homes and your house had to be sold to cover it.

There used to be a free option for everyone. It wasn't as nice. Those who could often went private. But that was a choice.