Fed up of reading threads asking how they can get out of paying care home fees.

[Nextdoortomeis]

As per the title.
I'm sure lots of people would like the state to pay care home fees.
But we don't live in a fair world.
Both mum and mil paid nearly £70k in fees
yes I didn't want to pay but I also wanted them to get the best care in their later years.

Could be - it depends on a few things:

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

97.5% don't go into care homes? The odds are quite high then.

What I find really strange is how quickly one becomes old. Especially if you care for others - a parent, carer for ill parents etc, you are so busy that the years just flash past. I want to really enjoy every moment while I still can.

Well, whoever it is that isn't paying needs to cough up. It's not clever to avoid paying tax, it's defrauding the rest of us.

Having looked at so many different categories homes, for fiL and DM, I certainly wouldn’t say that the most expensive are always the best. In particular what I’d call ‘Homes and Gardens’ decor is often there to impress relatives who are choosing. Cosy and homely are IMO far more important,

The flashest I ever was visited was right on the seafront, with ‘luxury’ decor, but the staff were surly and miserable and dh’s old aunt, who’d put herself there for a month while
her helper was away, absolutely hated it and couldn’t wait
to get home.

But the care home where DM spent the last years of
her life, an Abbeyfield, purpose built for dementia, was far from
the most expensive we looked at, but the care was excellent, with cheerful, friendly staff.

That's the way it's always been. It's just that after WW2, the "right" to inherit capital was extended to the working & lower-middle classes. But that's a blip in historical terms.

Cool, nice to know that a person is only worth caring for if they own property.

I sacrifice every bloody month too, but unlike you I will have nothing to show for it as the money I pay just lines a landlord's pocket while also making it impossible for me to save enough of a deposit to actually buy somewhere. Don't worry, I'll make sure my kids throw me out on the street to die when I am old so you don't have to feel hard done by about this piece of poor non-landowning trash getting looked after

Yes take the prescription and not take them then?

Can't we keep any of the money we liquidate to have a great holiday or whatever? Does it all have to go on Care?

What happens if you jointly own a home?

Would it be worth adding the young relative to whom I wanted to bequeath my house to the deeds?

Out of curiosity who should pay for your care in old age?

So you resent them getting something for free but plan to do the same. Wow. and they did work hard for decades, to pay the rent. Atleast you have something to show for it.

But say they can prove intent to deprive - what happens?

Have you ever looked at the accounts or considered the costs?

Or considered how many hours are in a week for a ballpark analysis -

£1000/186 hours = £5.91 per hour .

That to pay for a share of the staffing costs, unfortunately possibly minimum wage care workers plus employment 'uplift'/NI plus whatever contribution to nursing support and management.cc

Then food and other direct costs.

Contribution to utilities/heating and other costs.

Significant fixed investments in buildings and fixtures and fittings - £1m+ requires funding or a return on investment.

Then regulatory compliance costs.

And lots of other things.

And any return on investment/'profit' for these outrageously profit making ventures - FWIW, none of the homes in my area appear to make excess profits.

Extortionate' £1000 pw?

There is an simple way to avoid care home fees. Take your relative into your home and care for them yourself.

I do wonder if the assisted dying law will come in at some point. If I had dementia I'd rather just do that than end up in a care home funded by my child's inheritance. I've seen family members spend years very unhappily in care homes, not knowing why they are there or who we are when we visited, not for me.

self- funded I should add, so apparently good and very expensive homes.

Oh please!
Those stuck in shitty rentals probably paid more than you did monthly. Why should their taxes fund your kids' inheritance and your care home fees?

I'm sure that's who PizzaPowder meant to refer to. My point was that this group who are not currently in work are being demonised as all take and no give, but nobody gets away with putting nothing back because of VAT. A great many of those who don't work are living with chronic disability and ill health and a lot of them will be carers. Some of them could work if they had the right sort of support and very understanding employers. We as a society haven't made that possible. Yes, there are some scroungers who could work and don't. Their numbers are greatly exaggerated to divert attention from those who are also defrauding the rest of us by not paying their fair share of tax.

It certainly used to be. I have met a couple of people who made their fortune out of the private care home 'racket' in the 1990s. Talking to one of them was quite a revelation.

Completely agree. The poorest pay most tax, proportionate to their income, whilst those rich enough not to work pay virtually no tax on their wealth. And we wonder why there's no money for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and social housing, whilst fighting over the crumbs.

Yes, used to be, back in the day. GPs surgeries used to generate significant profits for partners too. IME, all not so much now,

Genuine question: Why didn't you buy and chose to rent instead?
I know it's difficult to get into home ownership now, but if you are discussing retirement, I assume you are 50+? If you are (forgive me if you aren't), our generation could buy homes a lot more easily than today;s youngsters. I don't know anyone who rented really - 5% deposits and mortgages lower than rent costs made buying a much more attractive option than it is now.
It's no use being bitter about 'lining landlords' pockets' if you made an active choice to do so.
Of course, you may be under 35, in which case ignore my question!
.

If the council can prove deprivation of assets then they will bill you for the care as if you still had the assets to sell/pay for it.

If you don't pay they take you to court and put a charge on e.g. the property they can prove was given away so that when it's sold they get their bit with interest first.

I'm involved with two such cases at the moment. It's not particularly rare.

If there was a 'blip', then by definition it's not the way it's always been. And even if it always was that way, that doesn't mean it should continue to be that way. There is too much wealth inequality in our society, and the way to address that is to effectively tax the wealthy (who I consider to be those with assets in excess of £10 million). Once we have effective wealth redistribution, we will have a functioning society again.

We need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in, for ourselves and our children. Do we want an inheritocracy, where all that matters is what you inherit, and a society that is increasingly geared up to the exclusive service of the princelings who inherit, or do we want a meritocracy, where things are fairer? I accept there will never be a utopia, but I don't accept we have to continue on this path.

"The deliberate deprivation of assets is a criminal offence, although local authorities are unlikely in practice to take action through the criminal courts. They are much more likely to enter into discussions and attempt to recover the assets, or refuse to continue paying for the care. As a last resort, local authorities may apply for a county court judgement against someone accused of deliberate deprivation of assets".

LA funding gets tighter compared to the costs of their Statutory Functions ...