Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Selling your home to pay for your care in your old age

462 replies

BlueCarnation · 04/12/2021 14:47

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.

OP posts:
Starcup · 04/12/2021 17:22

[quote Thursdaymiami]@Starcup
I don’t own a house. I can’t afford to.
Does that mean I am lazy ? Or that I had bad luck and you had good luck. Should I not get any care when I’m older even though I will have paid tax and NI all my life.

How many people are there out there that have been claiming from the state and contributing absolutely zero from the day they were born till the day they died.[/quote]
But your bottom paragraph is my point. It’s not people that work hard all their lives, whether that be a corporate lawyer in the city or a supermarket worker on the minimum wage, work is work regardless of how much they get paid.

It’s the people that chose not to work that get everything paid for throughout their lives, this is what makes people sick. Not people that work hard but can’t afford a ridiculously overpriced house.

We all know it’s cheaper to buy a house in the north so people in the south are always going to be disadvantaged. It’s not really about the house, it’s about the lack of work ethic of some

5128gap · 04/12/2021 17:23

Maverickess I think your excellent post says pretty much all that needs saying on this subject.

Turkishangora · 04/12/2021 17:25

@Maverickess

It's not just the lazy, work shy scrounging lay abouts that can't afford to buy their own home to fund their social care. I can't, and I can't because I work in social care for the pittance we're apparently worth, and I'm single so no one to share the financial burden of life with. Now before anyone pipes up with "Get a better paying job then" if all care workers do that, doesn't matter who's paying for what as there'll be no social care, we need low paid jobs like this, society relies on them, and if they're not paid enough to fund their old age then it'll need to be funded - you'll pay for it one way or the other because the stark reality is that the true cost of care (including paying those who deliver it a wage they can do more than survive on) isn't being met. The problem is that anyone who doesn't own their own home is seen as a feckless waster or a work shy scrounger and so people get up in arms about having to sell their hard work to fund their care (paying more if private because the LAs don't pay enough) and can't conceive that the person in the next bed might have been just as hardworking but not as valued financially for that hard work.

That said, the system is shit. We've got private business at the heart of it and the aim of private business is to make money, we've got LAs paying as little as possible because they don't have funds and the shortfall and profit margin has to be made up somewhere, so it's put on self funders.
If we were to fund all social care, for everyone, we'd still all be paying because taxes would be higher, but maybe the cost would be more evenly split, though those with higher income would obviously pay more. Whichever way you look at it, social care needs to be funded, through the combination we have now, or through ensuring that everyone is in a position to buy or save (so increased wages in industries like care - more tax) or funding it fully - with more tax.

Of course people like me without the means to pay for my own care could just drop dead at retirement, because we've worked a lifetime making sure other people get care for a pittance. Sure that'll appeal to some on here!

I do agree it's really bloody tough these days for hard working people to afford a house. The ones that do are either gifted deposits by their families or live at home with parents and save a huge chunk of their salary each month. This really isn't an option for many many people. I was very lucky to be able to buy a flat when 100% mortgages were a thing 20 years ago and I made quite a bit of equity on it.
PinkSparklyPussyCat · 04/12/2021 17:25

@fiftiesmum

Someone upthread was concerned that their home would need to be sold if their DH went into a care home. The spouse can always stay in the family home with no financial contribution from spouses savings. Not sure about unmarried couples, siblings or adult children (unless they are fairly old themselves)
That was me. Thank you fro your answer. Obviously If I could contribute to his care I would (and I hope he'd be the same!) but downsizing isn't an option.
IamGusFring · 04/12/2021 17:26

Part of the problem is that people who scrounge all their lives , spend all their cash on whatever random stuff get looked after in their old age .at no cost to themselves .For those who scrimped and saved for a house it therefore seems like they are getting penalised when house is used to pay fees .

Orchid876 · 04/12/2021 17:28

I do see your point, but the way we do it in the UK is quite regressive and unfair. If you have a home of average value or below, you may well need to sell your home and have nothing left when care is paid for. Someone very wealthy with a lot of assets will pay the same so will be left with a lot left over once care is paid for. Some kind of tax would be fairer imo, based on earnings/wealth. What we have is a bit like a reverse lottery, where if you're unlucky you can lose everything, and if you're lucky you lose nothing.

MistressoftheDarkSide · 04/12/2021 17:30

I think if the excellent carers who work in residential care homes were paid more it would diffuse some of the resentment, but it seems to be minimum wage or close to it for a task that does deserve better remuneration. If a care home has 30 residents and two thirds are paying around 4000.00 a month, the rest funded by the LA and you try to figure out overheads versus cost, it does appear some people are profiting from providing care homes.

I personally think there should be a cap on profit, pure profit that is, from such enterprises.

BorgQueen · 04/12/2021 17:31

A house can’t be sold out from under an adult child who has lived there long term to care for a parent/parents.
They have a legal right of occupation and would have to be considered by the LA when formulating a care plan.

So the Woman mentioned upthread needs good advice.

5128gap · 04/12/2021 17:33

@IamGusFring

Part of the problem is that people who scrounge all their lives , spend all their cash on whatever random stuff get looked after in their old age .at no cost to themselves .For those who scrimped and saved for a house it therefore seems like they are getting penalised when house is used to pay fees .
Why is it worse for people to get care with no cost to themselves than it is for someone's adult child to get a house at no cost to themselves? Why is expecting the tax payer to enable your inheritance not 'scrounging'?
EmpressCixi · 04/12/2021 17:34

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.

Mortgages are less £££ than paying rent, so no you’re not sacrificing compared to those with no home paying rent. Renters are sacrificing, not homeowners.

feellikeanalien · 04/12/2021 17:35

@Prokupatuscrakedatus

What about those people who work incredibly hard without ever being able to get a mortgage and buy a house? A lot of them providing services you - in your "I worked hard all my life -little world" - would not want to do without but are to mean to pay for properly either directly or via taxes?
This.

I find the attitude that because someone doesn't own a house they must be feckless benefit scroungers really offensive and depressing.

People who have to rent often pay much more per month than those paying mortgages and have no concrete asset at the end to show for it. I remember reading somewhere that most people are only three paychecks away from disaster. Illness, death, divorce or other unforeseen circumstances can turn you from someone leading a relatively comfortable life to someone who has to depend on benefits,

Those of you who are moaning about "scrimping and saving" to pay your mortgage have the security of living in your own home without having to worry about whether you will have to move because the landlord wants to sell or wants to push up the rent to an unaffordable level.

People often have to "scrimp and save" just to pay the rent. Even those on benefits will not always have all their rent paid.

Life isn't fair. The reality of life on benefits is grim. There will be always be some who can play the benefits system just as there are many wealthy people who play the system so as to avoid paying tax.

Whilst I do understand why some people think it is unfair I think this constant demonisation of people who are less well off is a symptom of some real nastiness in our society.

Don't forget that a relatively big proportion of people on Universal Credit are actually working.

Slightly off topic I know but some of the replies on here have been quite horrifying!

Thursdaymiami · 04/12/2021 17:38

The point is why do wealthy people with assets to have great SOCIAL care get angry that a tiny tiny proportion of people who have been on benefits all their lives and have contributed not one penny of tax, get a shitty level of substandard care.
I mean as a decent human, how can you be really angry about that

And most people I know that are in long term receipt of benefits are there because they really have no other choice. But I’m sure someone will come on and tell me they know a lady on 50k year of Benefits who goes to Barbados every year!

Basically this thread has turned into another benefits bashing thread.

Blossomtoes · 04/12/2021 17:38

@BorgQueen

A house can’t be sold out from under an adult child who has lived there long term to care for a parent/parents. They have a legal right of occupation and would have to be considered by the LA when formulating a care plan. So the Woman mentioned upthread needs good advice.
They can if said person is under 60.
Intercity225 · 04/12/2021 17:41

There's a big difference between medical care like a hip replacement or cancer treatment and needing to live for years and years in a care home with daily assistance. The latter is not what the NHS is for.

It was what it was for. Until the 1980s, 50% of beds in the NHS were long stay either for elderly people (geriatric wards) or those with learning disabilities. They have all gone. Iirc, central government used to pay for all social care, until they decided to hand it over to local authorities - and something like £10 billion has been taken out of social care in the last 10 years, leaving local authorities cash strapped.

So, in my county, the local authority will pay £549 per week for an elderly person in a care home with very few assets (who may have rented their house, and frittered their money away on bingo, whisky, holidays); while their thrifty next door neighbours, who didn't go on holidays and scrimped and saved to buy their own house, end up paying £1,000 - £1,200 per week for a care home place. Really, the cost of each place is about £850 a week. Why should the feckless couple get it for free, AND are subsidised by the careful couple? How is that fair?

Then, there is NHS continuing health care funding. This is for people whose social needs arise from a primary medical condition, and they do get to live for years and years in a care home with daily assistance for free.

Effectively, people with dementia are subject to a tax of virtually 100% on their lifetime's savings (in their house) to pay for their social care, while someone with cancer, who may had extremely expensive treatment on the NHS for free, then gets their social care for free as well, and they can pass their lifetime's savings to their heirs.

IMO, if we have a NHS, spreading the costs of expensive treatments across the whole population, then we should have a National Care Service, spreading the costs of social care across the whole population as well through progressive taxation.

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 04/12/2021 17:44

Anyone would think this was a new thing. Both my FiL and my DM were both entirely self funded for their eventual residential care. Both had dementia. DM died in 2015, FiL several years before that.,

TBH I was very glad that both times we were able to choose the time and place, and not need to be at the tender mercies of social services, who we didn’t need to involve at all, except for a brief tick-box visit in the case of my DM. We knew all too well when the time had come, and I might add that the decision was not taken without a great deal of heart searching.

If you’re dependent on SS to make the decision, they will typically (and understandably, because of the huge cost) wait until family doing their best to care, are on their knees with stress and exhaustion.

Comedycook · 04/12/2021 17:48

So, in my county, the local authority will pay £549 per week for an elderly person in a care home with very few assets (who may have rented their house, and frittered their money away on bingo, whisky, holidays); while their thrifty next door neighbours, who didn't go on holidays and scrimped and saved to buy their own house, end up paying £1,000 - £1,200 per week for a care home place. Really, the cost of each place is about £850 a week. Why should the feckless couple get it for free, AND are subsidised by the careful couple? How is that fair?

Not everyone who rents is a feckless layabout who has frittered away their cash...what a weird thought process.

Enzbear · 04/12/2021 17:50

We will do anything to protect our assets and leave them to our dc and gdc.
We have our main home as tenants in common, we will sell our two rentals once we recieve oap to spend on ourselves and give away.
Our main home is worth quite a few hundred thousand so we are looking at setting up trusts but even that is no guarantee so failing that we will use equity release or if necessary live in a campervan/hotel until we need a care home. Anything but hand over all our assets to care that others, some of whom despite being capable, have never or barely worked get, for free on top of everything else. Hth

ronniz · 04/12/2021 17:55

I fully agree that people who are entitled to benefits should receive them. I just don't think the way the system is assessed is always that fair. There's no way we could afford private school. Yet I know of at least 2 people whos kids have bursary places due to the parents being on a low income. They could work more but choose not to as it means they'll be worse off.

You didn't answer my question. No system can be 100% fair.

I can't afford private school but I can afford to live in the catchment of outstanding schools. Private schools should have kids from poorer backgrounds. The private schools & bursaries I know of generally want parents to be working as much as possible so that sounds unusual.

clarepetal · 04/12/2021 17:55

@Comedycook

I bought my house, I paid tax on my wages so why should my asset not be used for my kids?

Well why should it be used for your kids? Why should you live absolutely free in a care home, with no bills to pay, all food provided free, so your house can sit empty and then go to your children?

Because I bought the house with my own money and I should have the choice to do with it what I please. This may include giving it to my kids, or giving it away to charity, my possession, my choice!
ShineySparkleyChrissmassy · 04/12/2021 17:56

So many in the UK have a capitalist mindset and it makes them grabby. People confuse Income Tax and National Insurance with a personal insurance plan. It isn't.

It's not something you pay into and then when you personally fall on what you consider to be hard times, it pays out for you. It's funding the government, who are there to help the people. Government decides where the Income Tax and National Insurance is spent. It goes on a great many things, it isn't collected up and divvied out purely for health and social care. The government have criteria for those in need which are very strict, you have to be suffering already to meet the criteria for help and it's means-tested.

The fact that a person has eg £20k in investments or eg owns a property worth £100k and doesn't want to spend that money on care is irrelevant. It's about needs not wants . If you have money to pay for your care then you're not in need of government assistance.

It comes down to people being jealous of those with less than them. Which is totally warped. The reason people get government assistance is because they have nothing. There's literally nothing to be jealous of!

If people wanted it to be a system of a flat rate national care available to all without means-testing and also without taxes going sky-high, it would mean such a low base level of care that poor people would suffer despite receiving it, which is inhumane. Whilst rich people, who obviously wouldn't want to suffer unnecessarily, would end up selling their houses and spending their savings anyway to top up the care they received for free, to make it sufficient for their needs.

Sure, maybe their children might inherit something if they don't take a long time to die, but if those adult children are happy to inherit at the expense of someone else receiving insufficient help and suffering as a result, then they're selfish scum. Unfortunately, a great many people are selfish. They might not consider themselves to be scum, but that's a matter of opinion.

People need a mindset shift in the UK to stop viewing houses as an investment or an inheritance and start viewing them as a home. Paying off a mortgage over a lifetime will cost less than renting, once it's paid for there's no more cost (to state the obvious) and is also a permanent home. Renters rarely have the security of a permanent home and the rental cost never stops until they die. Maybe, if they're poor enough, they'll get some housing benefit to help pay for it, but it's rarely enough to cover the entire cost of the rent. If people could appreciate the benefits of home ownership, the costs it saves them over a lifetime and the security it provides, they'd see that even if it's sold in old age to pay for care, they've still "won" compared those who rent.

It's such a myth that those with nothing, have nothing through choice. A myth that they've chosen not to work and that's why they have nothing. As if their poverty is their own fault. The government criteria for unemployment benefits are strict, you're not entitled to them by choosing not to work.

There's so much judgement of people who don't work, by people who can't see a reason why they don't work and who don't stop to think about that. Just because you can't see something that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We live in what is supposed to be an equal society. Nobody owes an explanation or justification for their existence to anyone else, except the government if you need assistance from them. Yet that's what all the jealous people are expecting. They don't mind genuine benefits claimants, the inference being that anyone who hasn't justified their situation to that jealous person individually isn't genuine but a fraudster.

Jealousy is such a useless emotion, harming everyone it comes into contact with. The jealous homeowner can't see what they have/have had over their lifetime (security, choice and peace of mind), only what they haven't got (government assistance for care). The people who they're jealous of and who already have less than them, suffer further due to campaigns and voting strategies by the jealous people who are trying to feed that endlessly green-eyed-monster by taking from others.

The trouble with jealousy is it's never satisfied. Maybe people who have nothing should be given nothing, so that the jealous people can have it instead, with the poor left to die in the streets? Except that wouldn't make the jealous people happy either would it? Dead bodies decomposing everywhere. Especially if, through unfortunate circumstances, they or their relative became the poor person themselves. They don't want to witness suffering or the effects of it and they don't want to suffer themselves. They just can't see past the tunnel vision of wanting what someone else has and it consumes them.

Selfish people who can't get their own way do often consider it a travesty, OP.

ronniz · 04/12/2021 17:56

Anything but hand over all our assets to care that others, some of whom despite being capable, have never or barely worked get, for free on top of everything else.

So you have problem with it going to those people but what about someone who gets it free because they are disabled & were unable to work?

Kennykenkencat · 04/12/2021 17:56

porridgecake

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

So not only are people selling their houses to pay for their own care. They are also paying for other peoples care as well.

So Dmil who is in care with dementia which is costing £2000 per week. Is being kept alive, and she is being kept alive to pay for someone else’s shortfall.
In moments of clarity I can’t describe the devastation and complete hopelessness she feels that she is still breathing

The doctors have said whilst her mind has gone she probably has 5 more years.
She is blind, and whilst always being slim she is probably now not more than 5 stone and her legs are too weak to take her weight

She sits in her room or is wheeled out to the communal living room and that is her life.
Another 5 years at £2000 per week will bring her to the point of having no assets. I think they won’t keep her around after the money runs out.

I sometimes wonder if we mentioned that we have realised that her flat only had a short lease so the money had or was going to run out sooner than we thought it would put her out of her misery.
Maybe I am being cynical but I can’t help thinking it.

ronniz · 04/12/2021 17:58

Or someone who gets if for free because they downsized & gave inheritance early?

Comedycook · 04/12/2021 17:58

Because I bought the house with my own money and I should have the choice to do with it what I please. This may include giving it to my kids, or giving it away to charity, my possession, my choice

You could say this about anything.

I demand free food from the government...why should I spend my own money? I earned it and I want to give it to my children.

CSJobseeker · 04/12/2021 17:59

I find the attitude that because someone doesn't own a house they must be feckless benefit scroungers really offensive and depressing.

Same. There are plenty of people who rent their home while working bloody hard in poorly paid jobs, constantly scrimping and saving. Their financial outgoings don't stop after 25 or 30 years like a mortgage would. Not being able to afford to buy a home does not make someone feckless.

Swipe left for the next trending thread