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.

It's been mentioned a couple of times but not that often - self-funding may give you more choice of place, but most importantly, it gives you more choice of timing.

DM is likely to go into a home shortly- if she wasn't self-funding, I am pretty sure the LA would discharge her from hospital into her own house with a package of 4 care visits a day.

She would then sit around terrified of having another fall. But because she is self-funding, she can decide to spend her money on a home rather than care visits.

Thanks for the insights. I've no idea whether they had CHC funding, perhaps this was it. Of course who does or doesn't receive CHC funding is another debate which politicians are kicking into the long grass ... anyway, thanks for the insights.

Thanks for this. I've no idea, to be honest, I just used this as an example of a wider issue around the fairness or otherwise of the funding for care in later life.

I'm just fed up, to be honest, that Labour, Tories and Reform simply seem to have no interest in actively pursuing this issue.

Politicians are meant to deal with difficult issues, not avoid them. Perhaps if we have a minority government at the next election the Lib Dems will have a voice on this. Rant over!

Because we can. Support is there for those that can't. Think of it like the benefits system, rather than like the NHS. You pay for it, but would only claim/be entitled to claim if you NEED it.

If either of us get there and despite all our careful planning, we simply don't have enough. Things happen, we might need care sooner or for longer than we imagined. That support will be there for us if we NEED it. I am really not sure why that doesn't make sense to you. It doesn't make sense to ME for the government to pay for my care if I can pay for my own at the end of my life. It's not like I am going to get better and need that money to live on in the future, is it?

I mean, I get people want to leave it to their children, but there are other ways you can help to ensure your children don't need that money when you die. I don't expect an inheritance, myself.

I just don't understand the desire to cling on to money you won't need where you are ultimately going, just for the sake of someone else not having it. Because that's what it comes down to, when all's said and done.

That said, I do think there should be an NI scheme for this. I just doubt very much that the types of people who are looking for ways to hide their money so their kids can inherit are going to be keen on the tax increase to do that. And there will still be people who haven't paid anything in, and we'd still be talking about 'why should they get this. They haven't worked' etc.

With MIL, we have just seen it as she is living in a home being taken good care of. She no longer needs a house.

Yes, other people pay less... for exactly the same thing... usually because they have less to give.

If my parents had needed care, theirs would have been funded... as they had nothing. They worked hard but were poor.

The state would have given them a safety net... unless I am mistaken, their pension would still have been taken towards it every week ... except for 30 odd quid. They would not have ended up in any better position in the end. They had nothing to begin with.

So by the same score I can pay for private health, I should have paid for my children’s education. Because I could.
remind me why I pay tax and paid national insurance for 40 years.. because by your thinking because I have assets I should be paying for everything.

I was simply suggesting an alternative system. One that treats everyone equally.
Its very similar to a system used in some Scandinavian countries for education.

Currently if you look at the charts on spending by age groups it’s the increase in 18-64 year olds that is having a significant effect on available finances to LAs. This spending is largely down to the increase in mental health diagnosis in these age groups. Generally those with physical disabilities have remained stable although claims have also increased.
We may find with Labour's recent proposals on spending in this area less with be spent on this age group. That’s their plan anyway.

Then
Its time to look at an over haul of the system for elderly care. Of note. There are Govn reports online on the parliamentary website going back years and even they accept that charging self funders extortionately more than LAs pay is immoral

What ARE you inferring? I’m talking about my mum who is in hell of a state with dementia and dies none of the nice ‘fluffy’ things you are saying! Yes she’s distraught! Just saw her! If you want to imagine dementia is fun then I’ll give you my mums address so you can see. Idiot .

Not the ones I visited when we were choosing. For three relatives in different counties in England

My MIL only knew how many were self funders because she asked everyone. 🤣. …….
I asked all the homes we visited but none would tell me.

No. That isn't what I said. Read my opening paragraph again. Think of it like state benefits. Do you expect to get those when you don't need them? I don't know about you, but I don't expect to get universal credit when I am above the threshold for needing it. I don't expect to get it because I have paid in. I expect to get it IF I am unfortunate enough to NEED it. It's a safety net. That's what it is for. It would be like saying just because I COULD pay my mortgage, I shouldn't have had to because some people get government money to pay rent.

Yes, there are some statewide benefits such as education and the NHS. Education was a bad original example on my part, I admit, but it was just an example of the fact we are all paying in some way into a system for things we might never need. Like universal credit, for example. Because I have enough money to live on, I don't expect the government to hand me the cash anyway, because somebody else gets it and I don't.

As I said, I think we should have an NI system for care, but whilst we haven't, yes, those of us that can pay, should do so.

I don't disagree we need an overhaul.

That’s very different though.
People who need to go into a care home need to because they need care. They can’t live alone anymore.
They can’t work so don’t have a wage so shouldn’t be required to pay for care. ( with the exception on their monthly/ yearly income ) It’s completely different to your comparison of UC and thresholds when people can work to earn more. The elderly can’t!

Lots of kids with adhd and mh issues get paid money for their care
They have parents
The elderly don’t

Those with no assets get care homes for free. So everyone should have access to exactly the same LA funds to support their care. If they then wish to top up with some savings fine.
Tbh at this stage I think the very least LAs should do is provide equal financing for all. Personally I wouldn’t be bothered if I had to top it up after means testing as long as I’m treated equally by my LA.

The Government acknowledge the system is grossly unfair on self funders.

But I will need them if I need care. You’re saying it’s a state benefit I can’t have even if I need it.

I can't remember exactly how it came about but I'm pretty sure neither of us asked, the owner volunteered the information, possibly to make it clear that if funding ran out MIL would have to move, I don't know. All I can remember was we were having a cup of tea in her office and she told us.

To be fair, she was different to the other owners/managers we came across, she was very open and had high expectations of everyone, especially her staff. She also treated them well, I can remember her threatening to ban BIL and SIL from visiting because they were so rude to her staff.

But not having a wage doesn't mean you have no money. Self funders have assets. Once those assets run out, they'll be in the 'for free' category.

It's not as though an elderly person in residential care is losing money they will need when they get better. It's not as though self-funders get booted on to the street if they run out of money, whilst others who never had the money still get care.

Look, I'm not saying it shouldn't change at all, but fundamentally, one way or another, whatever system we use will involve some people paying more than others, as the NHS does because you pay more NI if you earn more. And some people will never pay at all.

Because care needs money. It has to come from somewhere. It can't come from the people who have none. And there will always be people who cannot or simply do not earn, or don't earn as much.

Same way we pay for nursery if our children need to be looked after whilst we are work. If you are unable to physically or mentally care for yourself independently and your family is unable or unwilling to do it you have to buy that care in. Which means paying for it or other tax payers subsidising or paying for it.

People need to prepare for their latter years both financially and physically to reduce the burden on the State.

NO. Good grief. You need the care, but you can pay for it. You need the BENEFIT when you don't have the money to pay for it yourself. Self-funders have the money in assets and savings. So they don't need the BENEFIT to get the care. Bangs head against wall

So im guessing then you believe those on all non means tested benefits should be means tested

All those claimants of PIP and Attendance Allowance for example. All those homeowners getting wfa.
Let’s not forget homeowners in general that get benefits. Why don’t they have to downsize to free up their assets before they get any help.

You see!
Its called discrimination

Also as @nahthatsnotforme clearly points out as well it’s a state benefit that you get if you need it.

@nahthatsnotforme

Itll be the same with the nhs soon.. those who can pay will have to

We're already there. Lots of people now have to pay for private dental care because they can't get a place on the NHS. Lots of people are having to pay for private GP appointments, because they can't get an NHS one.

My OH needs an annual MRI scan to monitor his bone marrow cancer effects. He can't tolerate the NHS tube scanners as the scan takes around 45 minutes. So he needs an "open" one, which the NHS don't provide in our area, so he has to pay £1,200 per year for a private MRI scan. (And even then the NHS oncologist keeps losing the results but that's another story of NHS incompetence!).

Before you bang too hard, you haven’t said why you think I shouldn’t pay for some things the state provide and not others.

it’s not a ‘benefit’. No more than the nhs is. It’s something I pay for, along with nurseries, schools, etc.

people get benefits irrespective of some assets. Your house isn’t accounted for. Many people could downsize before the state steps in but, quite rightly, they are not required to.

We’re banging our head against the wall because you and others do not understand the concept of equality
whilst this countries attitude unwittingly creeps towards communism.

It’s truly shocking
and as I’ve noted even Governments acknowledge the system is wrong.

Now if everyone was means tested for everything including property and chatel assets before they received a penny from the taxman for any form of benefit then fine. But that isn’t the case. So either we are all equal or we are not and clearly many people still don’t believe in equality in this country……What a disgrace.

Nursery isn’t the same.
There are free hours paid for by tax payers. None of that is available to the elderly. No free hours. No nothing!
Now if pensioners had 30 free hours if they earn less than £50,000 / year then that would be equal.
But there’s nothing
Lets also not forget that parents are young enough to still be working. So they earn year on year whereas the elderly are not of working age so everything is being taken out of savings or by selling what they own. No one paying nursery fees is selling their house or jewellery to do so.

I think you're getting Inheritance Tax and Deprivation of Assets mixed up. If you make a gift of assets in excess of your IHT allowance and you live over 7 years that's excluded from the IHT calculation and yes, there is a sliding scale. Also, you have to not benefit from your property at all i.e. you must pay market rate rent to whoever you 'sign your house over' to.

For deprivation of assets there is no time limit.

How is there other ways to help ensure your children don't need inheritance when you die?
If the vast majority of your money is tied up in your house. Which is only worth a £100-200k

Easy if you've plenty money. Not so easy if the house itself has been a massive stretch.

There are free hours paid for the tax payer and pensioners get state pensions paid for by tax payers.

It's effectively the same a vulnerable individual requires the service of a third party. That service needs to be paid for if it is not being provided by family members or other interested parties.