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.

16k is not even a house deposit in most of the country let alone the substantial amount of money you are claiming people are leaving. And in general these people have been major contributors to tax their entire life, often part of those paying 40% of part of their income.

Yes, that is exactly my point (although I'm not sure why buying a house has become the yardstick here)
My siblings and I are now established but that doesn't negate the fact that our father worked from the age of 14 and an underprivileged background with a determination to provide something for us and it does feel sad to see that all go. However life is hard now for young families and they should not be struggling in order to fund inheritances for others.
That is why I think it is such a difficult situation, it is pitting emotion vs logic

Everyone subs those unemployed or people in social housing through taxes with no gain to themselves personally, who then go on to get free care in their twilight years.

And yet you want to say to someone who wants to help give her children a leg up This is just such a backward, illogical and selfish mindset.
It's not. You were being really harsh imo. It's simply a mum who wants to help her kids out, and not have them struggle.

Exactly my point. As someone who did not have anything when they were younger, and was in debt even up until my mid 20s I’d hope my children wouldn’t have this!

There is absolutely no requirement for anything to be left to equate to a 'house deposit'

An inheritance, if forthcoming, is what the estate has left in it at the end of the persons life. Thats it, it is not for the state to pick up the living costs tab for people in order for their offspring to be able to afford a house deposit. Its quite remarkable you're trying to make this argument

What substantial amount of money am I claiming people are leaving? To who?

Who knows if they are net contributors!!!! Thats a reach, you have no idea if they are not. Newsflash for you, most people are not, particularly if you have had kids.

If it was me, I would reframe it as he wanted to provide care for your mum. But that is me.
My DF died recently. All he left was the money in his wallet.

Society gains by having people who are the poorest in society supported, its why we have benefits and NHS care and education free at the point of delivery. Society benefits.

That is not the same logic as saying we need to ensure someone has a house deposit. That is ridiculous

There is nothing 'harsh' about this, you're simply being illogical.

If everyone adopted this mindset the end result is just everyone being poor and having an absolutely tiny minority with any control over their finances or lives for that matter.

The care home funding system in England is frequently described as having deep-rooted hypocrisy, characterised by a fundamental inequality where self-funding residents subsidise those funded by the state, and where individuals are forced to deplete life savings for essential care, unlike the free-at-the-point-of-use NHS.

The Key aspects of this hypocrisy include:

• The Cross-Subsidy Scam: Local councils, which fund care for about 63% of residents, often pay rates below the actual cost of care. To make up for this shortfall, care homes charge self-funders (the remaining 37%) significantly higher fees, meaning private individuals are effectively paying for the state’s underfunding.
• Asset Depletion (The "Care Tax"):Anyone with assets (including their home) over £23,250 must pay the full cost of their care, often leading to the forced sale of family homes. This is viewed as a "tax" on residents with dementia or long-term illnesses, while those with acute medical needs receive care for free through the NHS.
• Failed Reform Promises:Successive governments have promised to fix the system, including proposing a £86,000 cap on lifetime contributions, but these reforms have been repeatedly delayed or scrapped, leaving thousands to face uncapped costs.
• Underfunding and Staff Exploitation: The system operates on a massive £1.5 billion funding gap, resulting in low wages and high staff turnover, with many care workers earning less than the minimum wage, despite doing vital work.

This system creates a situation where elderly individuals, often suffering from dementia, are penalized for needing long-term support rather than acute hospital care, making the system feel, to many, like a national scandal.

..

What mindset? This is the current status quo, taxes are paid for the benefit of society to have a social safety net to provide for the poorest in society. The rest of us who dont qualify pay our way.

The 10% or so who need a care home, half of those will be self funders, or thereabouts.

How many of us dont have control over our lives and finances?

If its so important for people to have that house deposit (which as another poster says shouldnt be the benchmark for how care is funded), then adult children can care for their parents cant they? Move in to the house that is the apparent family home that everyone wants to get their mitts on.

Who is actually getting a leg up on the housing ladder by the time your parent is going into a care home?

I dont disagree care home fees are too high, thats not want the OP is about though

Your example doesnt really stack up, this doesnt make anyone 'poorer', the kids of the parent are their own individual people, each person is responsible for themselves. Perhaps they wont get social housing becuase they will go and live somewhere cheaper in any case. Pefhaps they'll get good jobs, who says they wont. Any talk of house deposits in any case are purely a south focused view, as other posters say, someone with a house worth about 100k or 150k, even with a cap isnt going to be leaving much. But again, you build up assets in your life to spend on your life, thats normal.

But be careful what you wish for because the flavour of some of this discussion in gthe thread is that those who cant pay for themselves really need to book in at Dignitas and save us all the cost of care.

And now you've edited your post so my reply doesnt make any sense

I wish MN had not introduced the edit, the amount of times I write a reply and by the time Im finished and its posted the poster has canged their post and added or taken away information that means the reply makes no sense.

For all the pp saying that it's fair to make people who need care pay for it, rather than tax payers - do you apply that in any other areas of life?

Do you think people going to hospital should pay for their own care instead of other tax payers? Or pay if their children need nhs treatment? And not just pay to subsidise those that cant afford it, but get exactly the same treatment for the money (not faster, or more convenient etc which private health care usually is)?

I have a vested interest as both my parents have had to fund years of care due to dementia, we had to sell their home, and I will likely inherit nothing (as well as seeing them suffer for years). Some people will think that's fair. But what really seems unfair is that dementia is considered a care problem not a health problem, creating the issue that you pay for care rather than getting it free on the NHS.

I get 'the country can't afford it' crap, but why should dementia be singled out to be different? Surely a hybrid system of NI type insurance plus personal contribution capped at eg £100k would be fairer?

Well where I worked unless they had family who could afford to pay the massive top ups they didn’t get a room with a view because not everyone could afford ££££’s every week.

At a guess... people with dementia do not go into a care home, then get better and go back home. They stay in the care home. They only get worse.

This is true, however people unfortunately have chronic conditions and stay in NHS hospitals/hospices. This dosent then leave them burning their lives work away due to something out of their control.

True, but they can go home. They can choose to go home. Some people have hospice care, but still choose to pass away at home.

ETA - I also think it wrong that hospices are mainly funded via charity donations. Death is part of life, and like birth, a good death should be funded by the NHS.

I agree with paying for some of the cost

On the basis that currently people are allowed to keep £30 a week for personal spending equating to just over 13% of a state pension. For some this is their entire income

So in the spirit of fairness everyone should pay the same % of their income for care
ie 87%
some will pay more if they have private pensions and investments
but they will also still keep 13% even though that exceeds the £30

The rest should be paid for through our taxes just like all care in the nhs.

Labour put a stop to the price cap because traditionally the elderly don’t vote for them. That’s a disgusting way to treat people and disgusting that we don’t have a right to equality in our final years.

We should all be required to pay into an insurance system to fund our elderly care.

How am I a scrounger? I’m working for and spending my own money. I’ve never in my life claimed a penny off the state.
I and my family are enjoying the fruits of our labour. Why do you think we are not entitled to do that?

I don’t intend to need care. Perhaps I won’t. But if I do, then all of the tax I’ve paid into the system since I started working 30 years ago, and assuming I work another 15 years…might actually be worth it. I’ll get a little back.

It’s people like me who pay for other people to be able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living despite not working themselves for whatever reason, so I’ll continue to enjoy my own hard earned income thanks, rather than just be a cash cow for others.

I am of the view that people should keep significantly more. But this view point is simply vile. You can’t get rid of people’s parents etc purely due to the job they had. And apart from this, this viewpoint isn’t even factually correct as most of those on minimum wage will take far more from the state than they ever paid in taxes. There isn’t even anything wrong with this, but the argument they’re paying for others care is not true.

It's not a given people need a care home. Most need some in-home care in later years. Some, none at all.

The vast majority of older people remain in their own homes. Only about 5% as I understand it require care homes.

Thats easy to say when you live in a big 4/5 bed house.
If your in a 2/3 bed semi, or excouncil moving to 1/2 bed flat isn't necessarily going to free up much capital, especially once you consider moving costs and the other costs like getting the new place the way you want it.
Plus you have the thing of decent neighbours who know you will keep an eye out, especially in the icey weather, you might not get that in a flat with young people who never see you.

I think that 5% should get their fees paid. Just the same as any other illness.