AIBU to try and prevent care home fees? Advice appreciated

[Watermelonsuns]

So my parents are elderly, both have health issues but managing well at home. My mum in particular would struggle if something happened to my dad. Recently a friend's parent had to go into a care home and as the parent owned their own house and savings they are self funding and the fees are crazy.
AIBU to try and find a way to protect my parent's property and savings in order its not all gone in care home fees in the last years?
Someone has suggested moving their property into my name but surely that would be an obvious way to avoid fees and would look dodgy? Is there another loop hole im missing? Aby advice from someone working in this area would be appreciated thanks

They're the same place. Maybe there are high end places for millionaires but the average person selling a 250k house won't be able to afford those, they'll be self funding in a perfectly pleasant place surrounded by those fully funded.

Sorry to hear you are going through this. Would the local authority be prepared to put a charge on the property instead?

Suggest
RTFT for further explanations as I’ve already responded quite a lot on this

Agree
Its the same in different Council areas we’ve looked at.
No difference at all.

They closed the workhouses down a long time ago 😳

Why? About the 7 year thing you are wrong.

I know people self funding often end up in the same care homes as those being paid for by the state. But I agree with assets being used in this way.

Agree and in the long term with an increasing number of younger people 18plus receiving Social care the country will see the current so called funding strategy is not sustainable.
For once I wish a Government would look to that future and stop with the here and now!!

Thats why we are in a mess ! and will continue to be.

I know it’s a bit of a derail but interesting that no one on here is interested in the whole tax bill for all age groups and only interested in pensioners paying. Maybe that’s another thread I suppose 🤷‍♀️……end of derail OP

People 18 plus are going to be treated like elderly people in the future i.e. they will only get the bare minimum.

Are you living in a failed state run by warlords? Well then you got something for your taxes.

Whilst it’s not allowed
with only 50% paying in full and the local councils not paying enough the high fees at these average care homes are subsidised by those that are paying.
I believe this is wrong.(and in fact not allowed) Councils should pay what it costs for those they are funding and not rely on others to subsidise them.

I tagged you @Gloriia apologies that’s a mistake, but don’t want to have to write again. 🥴

So Again another thing to overhaul…..and on and on it goes.
Wonder if Labour are looking to make any changes at all ? I have no idea.

We are very fortunate that my mother has enough assets to fund her elderly care when the time comes.

I would never dream of expecting other taxpayers to pay for that, when she / our family can afford it ourselves. And in turn, why should I pay more tax for people who choose not to pay for their care by shielding their assets?

I also wouldn’t want my mum in state funded care, which is notoriously shit.

As others have said, we need to be grown ups and accept that appreciating house values in this country serve the purpose of paying for your care in old age. If there is an inheritance left, you’re very lucky.

I also wouldn’t want my mum in state funded care, which is notoriously shit.

Doesn’t really exist these days since most home’s aren’t owned by local authorities @SquashedSquashess . Chances are your mum will be living with people who’re being funded. I’m astonished people have the misconception that all self-funders are in wonderful homes with other self-funders, and the rest are in the ‘shit’ homes.

No, but IMO there’s too much ‘striving to keep alive’, particularly where dementia is involved.

Can't shout this loud enough

Yes it is absolutely staggering. Some people think their dps selling their semi will give them an ensuite in a beautiful posh country house. Nope, they'll be in the same understaffed care home chain as everyone else except they'll pay for the privilege while renters get it all free.

You can see why some sell all their assets and fuck off on perpetual cruises..

@Watermelonsuns hospices are funded by charities, not government.

If people want social care they have to pay for it. What do you think a house and a pension are for?

If you want Govt to pay then be prepared to pay thousands more per year in income tax.

Splitting a house equally between a married couple who both live in it (or long term cohabiting couple) isn't deprivation of assets though. It's a normal way to arrange finances to give financial security to both partners.
It's a completely different scenario to giving your house to a child who lives elsewhere but continuing to live in it rent free, which is only done for one reason

And again - theres no set period for care costs. They will be looking at the reason for what was done and whether there was knowledge the time that care home fees would soon be needed.

E.g. if my parents give me 50k for a house deposit now and then die in 2 years, that sum would be considered for inheritance tax (if their total estate was worth enough). However it probably won't be considered for care fees as there was a legitimate reason for the gift and currently my parents have no reason to think they will need a care home in 2 years.

I think we are in agreement!

Haven’t RTFT but if you’re suggesting the 7 year rule applies to deliberate deprivation of assets then you are very wrong. That rule applies to assets given away being exempt from inheritance tax.

What about young people then who are also receiving Adult social care funding
98% of applicants as apprised to 50% of 65plus applicants.
In terms of actual numbers 140,000 65plus and 137,000 18-65.

What would you like to do to them.

In fact where does it stop!

So RTFT, cant be expected to explain every time
Ive given a very clear ( many ) explanations
You are misunderstanding what I am saying.
This has nothing to do with IHT.

Re last para
Maybe in the long run that’s what will have to happen.
Or like in other countries people pay into Health Insurance that then pays care home fees.

I don’t agree that we need an equal policy. While not everyone is going to need care before they die, reduced capacity to care for yourself is a normal, natural consequence of aging - something that happens to everyone if they live long enough - and it’s reasonable to expect people to plan for it in a way that it’s less reasonable to expect people to plan for needing care before they get older.

That doesn’t mean I don’t think younger people with significant assets shouldn’t use them to pay for care before tax payers take over (though I can see some situations where it might not be better for society and the exchequer). It just means I think they are different circumstances so treating one group in one way doesn’t mean it’s wrong to treat the other group differently and I disagree with arguments that claim unfairness on that basis.

I would disagree
The younger group are increasing beyond expectations and we have no idea of the future in terms of Social bill to individual councils.

I believe there should be a system that accounts for future fluctuations so other services are not so serverly impacted, as they currently are ( although appreciate at the moment it’s not just social care )

An equal system for all with no discrimination.

we’ll have to agree to disagree.