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, and the days of property as an ATM with windows is basically over, the credit/debt bubble that lasted from the early 2000"s to now was a one off event, it won"t happen again, the boost property bought in the 90"s and before got from that bubble will fade, care homes are just one of many milking this cheap debt extravaganza as long as they can.

Yes this is a pretty disgusting and incorrect myth. Like people who claim they are on £100K a year and have a huge £1.5 million house with 4 bathrooms, a triple garage, and 6 bedrooms, insist they have all this through 'sheer hard work!' 🙄

And anyone who has a £150K terraced house, or RENTS their home, has never done a day's hard work in their life! Fact is, most people who have absolutely loads, have often had more lucky breaks and advantages in life (and often some handouts,) than those with very little. In the majority of cases, they have not worked much harder.

I have mixed feelings on this, but I actually think if people can pay for their own care, they should.

They should help their children financially, if they can, while they're earth-side. That way, they can see them make the most of the money, and reduce the amount they'll have to spend on care. Don't hate the player, hate the game, but you can't just hoard money and then expect someone else to pay for you.

I can see both sides. It does seem unfair when others don't pay. I often feel what is the point of selling the majority of your healthy working hours when I know people who have never worked a day in their lives having a life very much simular to mine. Free council house that now they will be able to pass down to children of they move in at the time they die. The only difference is that I will own my house 1 day. But then if I need care then i won't have this to pass down to my DC. But I think it is only around 10% of people end up in care.

On the other hand, someone has to pay for it. Why should today's taxpayers have to pay equally to protect the inheritance of others. I won't inherite a penny so why should I pay towards protecting others getting wealth passed down. Not everyone owning their homes has worked towards it either. My exes mum never worked a day in her life. She owns outright a beautiful home worth around £800k now from a settlement in her divorce, was worth £400k when she bought it 15 years ago. My mum has always worked but she didn't marry a high earning man, they could never afford to buy and lives in a council house, so that doesn't seem fare either that 1 woman actually has worked, the other hasnt but lives a much better life. Life isn't fare for many different reasons

When my dad passed away my mum was advised by her financial advisor to put half of her house in my name as inheritance to avoid all of the value of it being eaten up in care costs if she ever has to go into a care home.

You can use the argument about many things though, why should the childless pay taxes for others dc. Why should you pay 35 years of NI contributions when someone else gets pension credit. Why should I get a mortgage when my neighbour has a council house etc.

@DontKillSteve · Today 18:02

Spending your last miserable weeks/months/years in a care home is no life for anyone. My aim is to use Dignitas if it comes to it (expect I’ll be dead long before). But it’s not right that so much tax is being spent on the elderly wasting away.

Completely agree with this. I shall also be using Dignitas if my quality of life starts to diminish. If I am diagnosed with dementia, or advanced cancer, or MND, or Parkinsons, or something that will have a profound effect on me and my life - and the life of my DH and family, I am out! I am NOT going to get to the point where I can't walk, drive, get to the shops myself, do my own life admin, talk, wipe my own bum, feed myself, and get myself to the loo! (Or do anything for myself!) No-one should be expected to live this way, and it's pretty disgusting really, that it's seen as a reasonable thing to do, to have someone just 'exist.'

And I will certainly NOT be getting holed up in a care home!

.

People who are planning to use Dignitas should perhaps be aware that they need to sign up sooner rather than later and pay about £200 a year.

YABU. I say this as someone who will be paying for my care. This gives me choices. Increasingly local authorities are not putting people without funds into care homes. They are leaving them at home with 4 carers coining in a day.

If the house is protected the tax payer is effectively funding an inheritence payment

I agree with OP but another point that really angers me is how we have allowed a privatised industry (often backed by private equity) to run care homes. Feels very wrong that people are profiteering in such circumstances. I guess all care homes are privately owned now?

This. The entire point of saving for a rainy day is to put the umbrella up when the skies open. No way would I want to spend my last days in the kind of shithole the local authority deems appropriate. The kind of care home I want doesn’t take people who aren’t self funders.

not Sure if u are in Scotland but I am and was told by our solicitor when my dad died that even if a house or money from a house has been gifted to avoid selling to pay for care then this can be asked for back, there is a timeframe but I can’t remember. The reason we asked was we were going to have my mums house put in our names to avoid this situation and even if she was to sell it to us the outcome would be the same. I do get what u r saying that the state can’t afford to pay n for everyone’s care however if someone hasn’t worked and claims benefits they would be entitled to care so how is that fair to people who have worked hard to buy a house so that they can leave something to their families

I’d be interested to know who you’d deem as “not contributing to society”.

Lots of disabled people, carers/parents of high needs relatives/children, people with mental health issues… are they contributing to society in your eyes?

There are lots of hard working people who don’t manage to buy homes and lots of people who can’t work but contribute massively to society.

It looks like this poster is talking about doing this when she and her DH are in their 50s. At that age, and if they are in reasonable health with no diagnoses or health issues which would suggest a future need for care, then they should be fine.

In my mid-50s I gave my DS a substantial sum for a house purchase. If I follow the health trajectory of my parents and grandparents, I would in my mid to late 80s before I either die (better option) or need residential care (shite option).

I do get what u r saying that the state can’t afford to pay n for everyone’s care however if someone hasn’t worked and claims benefits they would be entitled to care so how is that fair to people who have worked hard to buy a house so that they can leave something to their families

It’s called a safety net. Just like when you’re unemployed the government will give you money so you don’t die. If you already have money because you’re earning a decent wage you have to pay your own rent.

People don’t buy a house with the intention of their children inheriting it. They buy a house because they need somewhere to live. If it’s still there when you pop off and the DCs inherit it, it’s a nice bonus. If you’ve had to sell it to pay for your care, then it’s one of those things.

A parent receiving care in their final years trumps a child’s right to an inheritance. Why should the taxpayer pay for your inheritance?

I’m sure everyone who isn’t happy with the system will be ok with paying more tax.

Theresa May had a massive majority. Massive. Then a week before the election the Conservatives tried to be honest and deal with the situation of elder care by saying that everyone had to pay £150k/sell their home for caring for elderly care.

This went down like a lead balloon and pensioners revolted. She then scrapped a majority. The Tories literally lost hundreds of MPs by suggesting this.

By suggesting this policy, the UK almost had a hung parliament.

it’s all very well saying pay more taxes. But for many many families, the majority of families live in their own homes until death and all that happens is their kids arrange a cleaner, daily meals on wheels, drive them to hospital for appointments. but the elderly are looking after themselves in their own homes until death. Or the kids move in granny to their own homes.

I think most people are missing the point of this post. Having been a daughter of a care giver originally in the private care homes that then got used for social care. It is ridiculous that someone has worked all their life paid there dues will get the same care as someone who has never worked a day in their life but been supported by the government. It is a bitter pill to swallow. Can I also point out the majority or care homes are owned by massive corporations (usually abroad) who pay minimum wage to the employees yet charge £1500-£2000 a week. IMO I’d happily have a parent go into a home if needed however I’d want a nursing home rather than a care home.

Actually, it is automatic that the child(ren) have rights to inherit part of the deceased's moveable estate.

https://www.ilawsscotland.co.uk/children-cannot-be-completely-disinherited/

Arguably the lesson here is spend everything you have whilst you can, retire into rented accommodation and don’t have many savings.. the state will pick up the bill.

Obviously this is not sustainable, there will need to be significant changes to how elderly social care is funded much in the same way pension reform is required

By the time someone is at the stage where they need care then they are really not going to be needing their money for much else. Why shouldn't their money be used to pay for their care in a home? People who bleat about this usually mean "why can't they hold onto their money so I can inherit it". As for suggesting the state pay, do you think there is a bottomless money pit?

By that logic, there should be a two-tier NHS for the taxpayers. Maybe they should jump the queue and get a nice private room while those on benefits wait hours on trolleys in the corridors and are left to soil themselves.

This. Help your framing while you’re still alive. The issue is clutching onto it to the bitter end with no desire to spend it because you are saving it for others but refusing to recognise life changes and anything can happen.