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.

But then those children will get a home that they don't have to pay off. They did not "work hard" for it.

If you claim UC, a home you do not live in is classed as an asset. It is the same when you need care. You are no longer living in your home and it should fund your care.

'They'??

'Their children'??

They dont 'lose their home', which is what Im challenging you on

If I move from this house to a new accommodation, which also provides me with care, I dont 'lose' my home, I sell my current home to purchase a new home

And again this myth or stereotype of some waster being the alternative. Its morelikely to be someone who was in a council house or rented accommodation paying the rent all these years or looking after a disabled child or happen to be disabled themselves and perhaps had limited work or income opportunities.

Its no different to me having paid a mortgage on this hosue but someone moves in next door and rents exactly the same house but its paid for by benefits because they're sick or have a low income or have small kids to pay for. Living in the same house but Ive 'paid' for mine and they're living on tax payer funding.

No different at all. Its the way of it.

No way am I paying more taxes for someone to be abl eto leave an inheritance to their kids.

That's a completely different issue, but inheritance only occurs on death, what's left at that point - if you need a service during your life, then the money need to pay for that isn't available as inheritance.

However, with good estate planning its possible to, in most cases protect at least part of the home against care fees using simple life interest trusts and the correct property title arrangements,

I can see both sides of this argument.
I have a mother, now in her 90s, and likely to need care which will eat away all the assets our father worked hard to earn and wanted to provide as security for his children. Although the assets are not huge, emotionally this feels wrong.
I also have children and see how hard life is for young families so understand the view of why should they fund care of the elderly to allow inheritances for others who may have more than they have to start off with. Logically this feels right.
Although I have awareness of these opposing situations I do not have a solution and am not convinced anyone else has one either

I agree we need a safety net, but that doesn't mean it isnt the least worst option.

Yes, some but not all. And the comment didn't relate to people receiving care at home, just living at home.

If your DM is in her 90s then you are no spring chicken looking to start looking at buying a house. I would assume if you were able, then you would have one already.

I do think personal assets should be used to close their estate and pay for their funeral. I think that dignity should remain.

But people pay tax to pay for benefits for those not working too if you wish to go down the tax route. That's also something they do not personally benefit from.

Again, this is about people receiving care at home. Not everyone needs care - many elderly people live at home, and either die at home or in hospital suddenly or after a short illness.

the unfairness is where people have saved and lived frugally have to pay for their care but if you have spanked all your money away you don’t. But I have no clue how to get around this as we need to support poor people and I also believe wealthy people should pay for their care.

A common aim amongst people is to provide a comfortable life for their children even once they’re no longer here. It shouldn’t be accepted that the ability to do this is taken away by extortionate fees.

I in no way said people in council houses etc are wasters, I don’t think this at all. I grew up in one, and I studied hard and have worked my absolute ass off now. I don’t want that to just be swallowed up instead of helping my children.

Correct. My FIL was recently assessed and is now under DOLs. He is absolutely NOT under a section.

My MIL was sectioned and then moved to a dementia wing and her care was covered. I presume the DOLs assessment would not be required in this situation.

They were, up to when Labour came in, going to have a cap on fees paid by home owners. If memory serves me right, it was about £85k. Fairer but not so fair for those away from the SE of the UK who's homes are not worth so much.

You do know care homes cost £2000 per week!
thats more than some hotels
you’re not paying sums in line with what it costs to run your own home, feed yourself , heat etc …it is way more than that. Especially when you’re replacing one nice multi roomed private house with a small single bedroom, maybe not with even a bathroom, and a HoM occupancy for your other needs full of noise, chaos, lack of privacy, and sometimes quite distressing scenes

That £4400 per month is over twice my pension, I live on my own and pay for everything myself, take breaks, do nice activities and still save into sqvings.

so why is it so expensive? Profit. You do know that larger care and nursing home groups are investment vehicles with shareholders and equity companies filtering off dividend and growth in share value- in fact some of you will have your pensions invested in some of these companies. Never mind what management and directors are paying themselves. As for care workers who do work? Well we all know they’re probably needed support from universal credits to make ends meet

the same carehomes are then subsidising councils who pay for some residents by charging even more to those that can pay

and then it’s down to luck…and women fair badly here. Most people don’t know women go into care earlier than men and for longer simply because of issues with UTI and incontinence that , dueto their physiology they can no longer cope with at home. Women have the pension gap already, and end up paying way more than men for care as a population group just because of our anatomy and the toll on bodies dueto having children

and then it’s hardly fair that some people, like my dad, end up aggressive and get a deprevation of liberty order, sectioned, and not paying nowt , whilst mild Mrs smith in her dementia is not sectioned and still is charged something just because she hasn’t got a 117 order.

if people were merely paying for full board on a 1 bed room and shared areas, and covering wages of those actually doing work to care or nurse them, and running costs of homes, yep I’m with you. But that’d be a shed load less money than £4400 a month.

andgod help you if you are unlucky enough to live for along time in nursing homes. But then I suspect that’s why some people want assisted suicide for these money wasting old women.

This is part of my point! Due to the extreme profiteering of these companies, rather than them being publicly owned everyone ends up EXACTLY where the ultra rich want you to be. And the answer is left with almost nothing. It’s their final chance to take away what you have after having managed to do well. The fight about this amongst us is awful, as someone who wants to leave a 300k house to their kids is seen as poor by the people who own the places we give all our money to

A lot of the wealth accrued is down to luck, surely we can agree about that? A pp mentioned older relatives buying a home for a few thousand pounds in the mid 60s, and it being worth £750k now. My ILs did the same when they first got married, and their house recently sold for less than a third of that. They had enough assets to buy a couple of years' worth of care each in the end, had they needed it, and after that would have required council funding. Would that mean someone in that position suddenly becomes retrospectively feckless and undeserving, in spite of a lifetime of hard work and careful saving? Just because they didn't live in a place with ludicrous house price inflation?
I don't imagine any reasonable person would think so. But that's the judgement you're making, when you hear that Josie in the next room is being funded by the council. I doubt very much that anyone knows all the ins and outs of poor Josie's life and work ethic.

People who have been sectioned get 117 order for life though. With DoL in place after sectioning discharge, the 117 usually cover cost of most care, and as progression to nursing needs, will then cover it all

i know this. My dad was paying nowt in his final year as he had a 117, we were very fortunate.

This is just such a backward, illogical and selfish mindset

You work presumably to provide an income for yourself

You use that income to provide things for yourself like water, electricity, food, a roof over your head, holidays and clothing among many other things

That doesnt stop just because you go into a care home, those things are still being provided, you are still living and therefore if you are able, you fund yourself. As someone said above, you want a particular service (like I have a number of services in the house like cleaner, gardner etc), you pay for it.

Equally if we're saying that care should be free, well why cant I have my accommodation needs, food, gardenerr, cleaner, cook for free past a certain age. Why am I expected to fund it myself until my death?

The difference is that care is generally a need not a want. It’s not the same as having a cleaner at home which is a luxury! I am not arguing those with assets pay nothing, just that there is a proper amount left over

This is just such a backward, illogical and selfish mindset

What, to want to help her own children? That's a bit much isn't it? I thought it was normal for parents to want to help their kids and leave something for them.

Yes correct, you only need a DOL order if the care of the person deprives them of their liberty, outside of a section, or if you wish to restrict their movements and freedom due to safety.

Its nothing to do with sectioning per se.

I honestly don’t blame them for thinking this way, it’s exactly the way owners of these homes and any large corporation want us to think. It stops any of the general population from ever being able to gain anything

Normal to want to, not appropriate to expect the tax payer to sub you so that your kids can inherit a property which is only worth whats its worth due to inflation, not 'hard work'.

And its a want, not a requirement.

Everyone is left with at least 16k in any case

And again, the vast vast vast majority of people do not need care of any kind, let alone a care home.

A cleaner is not a luxury if you have disabilities which I do. I pay for it because I need it. I buy particular pre chopped foods for the same reason.

Not quite 'care' and Im certainly not entitled to any benefits, but not just a luxury.