To think it's unfair to sell your home to fund care when older while others pay nothing.

[SonnyHoney]

I provide healthcare services to older people, which means I regularly visit care homes. It’s something I find quite upsetting at times. I see individuals who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and are now facing care home fees of around £2,000 a week.

Meanwhile, others are living in the same care homes with their costs largely covered, aside from a contribution from their pension.

I say this as someone from a working-class background and daughter of an immigrant (El salvador) who has had to work incredibly hard to get to where I am financially. I’m also very aware that one day my own parents may have to sell their home to fund their care.
My mum, for example, has run a cleaning business for years, she’s up early every morning and has worked long, physically demanding hours. She hopes to pass something on, but realistically, I feel it will likely be used to cover care costs .

Before anyone says “Why don’t you just care for her yourself and keep the house?” And of course, if I’m in a position to do that, I will. But the reality is that with older age, there can come a point where needs become too complex, and care at home is no longer possible.

Obviously, those who don't have houses to sell need care and have to go to a care home, but my point is it just feels unfair, really.

Yes, it’s very unfair. The cost of an average semi is eaten up within a year or two paying care home fees.

I disagree with the system and will do anything I can to stop my parents going into a care home.

What's the rules? If they had sold their house earlier and rented, would their savings need to pay for the house

If you have a home that you can no longer live in because of your health/care needs, isn’t it perfectly fair to sell it to pay for somewhere more suitable?

So how does it work? I'm intrigued by this. Is it like schools, where you get state run schools and private ones... Private ones are ££££, but the state ones will be means tested as to how much you pay?

This is the fifty sixth verse of the "feckless scroungers" song this week.

YABU, because there is always the option of selling and downsizing to release capital to give to offspring if needed - and how do you think the country could afford to care for all elderly people who need it if nobody had to contribute from their own (often unearned, in the case of property equity) capital? Why should the taxpayer fund people's care so that they can keep their wealth to give to their offspring who definitely haven't earned it?
My parents sold their large house and gave me a deposit several years ago. If my dad needs to sell his house to pay for care, that deposit is safe, and can't be commandeered to pay for his care. I'll do the same when I am older and no longer need extra bedrooms/home office - we will downsize to a houseboat small flat and give sums to our children when they need it.

But if someone with money (in property or elsewhere) is funded by the state, the state is effectively funding an inheritance for that person's heirs. Taxpayers on low salaries could be paying for substantial inheritances for other people.

I can understand how it feels really unfair, but who do you think should pay for it if not the person requiring care?

I would be massively in favour of an insurance-based system that would cover the cost if needed, but would people actually pay for that or just hope for the best?

And I say this as the child and heir of someone who went into care and had to self-fund for several years.

And you are subsidising the non payers

Virtually everyone has to pay. Obviously if you have no money or other assets you're not left in the street to die. It's sheer luck, or lack of it, who ends up needing care at the end of life. We don't charge for the NHS, so why we charge those unlucky enough to need health and social care is a mystery to me. There should be a specific tax or insurance arrangement so that everybody pays in for the benefit of those who need it, like the NHS. The current set up is grossly unfair.

Yes

I don't see why anyone would expect free accommodation, meals and care when they have assets. You own a home, you need to move to another one, of course you sell the old one to pay the costs of you living in the new one.

We should be paying more in inheritance tax. There is no justification at all in a system that allows a married couple to pass on £1m tax free to their children and grandchildren if it includes their home.

Care needs to be paid for. If a person has money or assets then they can and should pay. This helps others receive the care that they need as well. You can’t really suggest that the state funds care so parents can leave homes and big bank accounts to their kids? The country could never afford it. Having worked for something is irrelevant in my opinion.

There are cheaper and more expensive homes. If you're council funded you'll get the cheapest option and no choice. If you're self funded you can choose the cheaper or more expensive ones as per your budget.

Absolutely this.
Of course people with assets should use these to fund their own care if needed.

If a family don't want this to happen then they need to discuss it and take the legal steps available to prevent it e.g. signing the property & assets over to offspring early enough for seven years to pass before care is needed.
Or the offspring need to make steps to care for their parents themselves so that a care home isn't needed.

It's unreasonable and impossible for the state to provide care for every elderly person.
Plus while you say it "isn't fair", perhaps it "isn't fair" that some of the elderly who do receive state funded care lived in rented accommodation all their lives with the uncertainty that this brings?

Who should pay then?

Of course they should pay. I had to give up work through ill-health. I can’t get any state support because I have too much in savings, so I am expected to fund myself. Someone without savings would get UC. That’s EXACTLY how it should be. The state can’t fund everything for everyone while they sit on their assets.

What I think is more unfair from What I’ve been told is that some care situations are covered via nhs regardless because of medical condition while others are not regardless of property or savings.

Also for 2k a week the services are very bloody lacking.

A school mum works in the kitchen at a care home and those residents get no choices all that money and it’s just basically school meals. For 2k a week I want a menu I actually like and I don’t want to be told dinner is 4pm either.

It's ridiculous, my grandparents worked and saved all their lives to have their house sold and used in care fees within a year- it was a very modest semi in a northern town.

To add insult to injury they were then given a budget on how much they could spend on toiletries/ clothing and even xmas gifts- £30per grandchildren was what the admin lady deemed appropriate. Budgeting their own savings- while absolute wasters who'd done nothing their entire lives were in the same place getting it all for free. Some of them very vocal about how much better they'd had it/ work was for idiots etc.

Yes, the person who worked hard and paid off their mortgage is benefitting from their hard work by using their assets to fund quality care. What's the problem?
Their offspring are not automatically entitled to their money and their parents' "hard work" is not the offspring's achievement to benefit from.
As to others getting it for free..What's the alternative? Shoot them as soon as they need care? Leave them to die in their council house flats? Do you have ideas?

If you need to go into a care home, your home is of no further use to you, so why would it not be sold? By the time most people need a care home they have very little in the way of financial needs, so no longer have a use for assets.
The only people who miss out are the people who might have hoped to inherit their house. But as the property isn't theirs, and not something they've earned, I don't think its 'unfair' to them either. It would however be unfair to tax payers to pay for someone's care so that someone else got an inheritance.

its not as simple as that. My mum died a few years ago having been in a care home for 10 years due to early onset Alzheimer’s, she first went into a home in her very early 60s, and was in her 50s when she started to have carers visit.
My dad basically lost everything including their house and now lives in a council house because of my mums fees. Had they not have rented their house, mum would have had the exact same care for free and dad would still be living in the ‘home’ they shared

This is why I don’t care to own anything. I’ll stay in my ha property and eventually I’ll go somewhere.