Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

1000 replies

SonnyHoney · 11/04/2026 16:39

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.

OP posts:
PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 13:50

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 13:37

Yes spot on, that’s how we got into it. And you’ve yet again failed to grasp that someone “working very hard” could still not have £50 at the end of the month to put in an ISA (don’t panic my four albatrosses have savings accounts despite being irresponsibly created as part of my marriage) It’s only a choice if you’ve got the money to play with. But that’s totally off topic.

The point was hard work doesn’t lead to assets for everyone and assets aren’t the result of hard work for everyone, so to sweepingly link the two is not useful or fair.

So you’ve literally just made my point for me Work of any description can result in saving savings.
Therefore, assets
Glad we got there in the end

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 13:56

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 13:50

So you’ve literally just made my point for me Work of any description can result in saving savings.
Therefore, assets
Glad we got there in the end

Genuinely, do you have a lower level of comprehension in general? I’m struggling to work out if I’m being fair expecting you to grasp some of these concepts.

I said in my last post some people will not be able to afford to save a penny at the end of the month, despite working very hard. The fact that my children have savings accounts doesn’t disprove that.

1apenny2apenny · 12/04/2026 13:57

Of course it’s unfair but councils love as all
those who provided for themselves their whole lives are then used to keep providing for those that have claimed all their lives!

This is why OP mr and my DP will be downsizing soon and spending/gifting our money to our children. We will maintain the lifestyle we have had and enjoy ourselves. As far as I’m concerned if society says that I have to be kept alive when I don’t know who I am, who anyone else is, where I am etc then they can pay for it or just let me die.

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 13:59

1apenny2apenny · 12/04/2026 13:57

Of course it’s unfair but councils love as all
those who provided for themselves their whole lives are then used to keep providing for those that have claimed all their lives!

This is why OP mr and my DP will be downsizing soon and spending/gifting our money to our children. We will maintain the lifestyle we have had and enjoy ourselves. As far as I’m concerned if society says that I have to be kept alive when I don’t know who I am, who anyone else is, where I am etc then they can pay for it or just let me die.

Oh lord not another one. You must surely realise that there are people out there that have worked all their life and don’t have assets to sell to pay for their care and people that have assets that haven’t worked a day in their lifetime

Cheese55 · 12/04/2026 14:03

Needspaceforlego · 12/04/2026 13:35

And nobody pays for hospice care, dementia care is essentially end of life care.

The rules have probably meant some families are trying to muddle by leaving the patient with inadequate care. Its not always easy for families to admit the parent / wife / husband is on need of care either.

Dementia patients don't always sleep great. And can be violent towards others. It is after all a mental illness.
But towards the end when they have forgotten how to eat, ie put food in mouth and chew that is definitely nursing care rather than social care.

I absolutely think all care at that level should be paid by the state. Money doesn't come i to maternity care and it shouldn't play a part in any end of life care.

Dementia can take years to become end of life care. You can live for years in the community with or without home care.

Zov · 12/04/2026 14:03

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 13:59

Oh lord not another one. You must surely realise that there are people out there that have worked all their life and don’t have assets to sell to pay for their care and people that have assets that haven’t worked a day in their lifetime

This! ^

Allisnotlost1 · 12/04/2026 14:21

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 13:28

You know nothing about my life or my life experiences
I’m not even sure how we even got into this but I think it was something along the lines of people without assets are just as hard-working as those without
And whilst that may be true, it does still come down to decision-making
I put £50 a month in my sons junior I so when he was born
£12.50 a week, and gave him nearly 30 grand on his 18th birthday
You don’t have to do a lot to acquire something in the way of assets
In fact, someone might say you have to work quite hard not to

Great for you that you had spare money to do that. You seem to think it’s a moral achievement on your part though, and it really isn’t. Even a rudimentary understanding of earnings/costs in the past two decades would help you understand it, regardless of your life experiences. Probably 70% of low earners would not be able to reliably afford to save £50 a month, and roughly half of those on middle incomes would struggle to reliably do so every month. And of course it everyone only has one child to save for.

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 14:26

Allisnotlost1 · 12/04/2026 14:21

Great for you that you had spare money to do that. You seem to think it’s a moral achievement on your part though, and it really isn’t. Even a rudimentary understanding of earnings/costs in the past two decades would help you understand it, regardless of your life experiences. Probably 70% of low earners would not be able to reliably afford to save £50 a month, and roughly half of those on middle incomes would struggle to reliably do so every month. And of course it everyone only has one child to save for.

But then you have to take some sort of personal responsibility and just have the children that you can afford don’t you?
The stork doesn’t bring them
So if you’re claiming with your mathematics that they wouldn’t even have £50 to spare with one child it’s outright irresponsible to have more than one.
I have lived through the last two decades by the way, and if as you’re claiming it’s not a moral victory to have the money to save.
Then actually, everybody should be able to do it because it’s nothing special is it?

Carpedementia · 12/04/2026 14:26

RoseField1 · 11/04/2026 16:47

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.

A tad hypocritcal..

Carpedementia · 12/04/2026 14:33

It’s not so much the paying for care as the price and quality of that care. Carehomes shouldn’t be privately run for profit. How can it cost 10000 a month to care for an elderly person? A pet hate for me is that the elderly dont even get tax relief on care fees. They get no help and pay full wack for everything.

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 14:40

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 14:26

But then you have to take some sort of personal responsibility and just have the children that you can afford don’t you?
The stork doesn’t bring them
So if you’re claiming with your mathematics that they wouldn’t even have £50 to spare with one child it’s outright irresponsible to have more than one.
I have lived through the last two decades by the way, and if as you’re claiming it’s not a moral victory to have the money to save.
Then actually, everybody should be able to do it because it’s nothing special is it?

Edited

So only kids for high earners? Back to that again?

What do people in NMW jobs do? Never procreate? Who fills those jobs when they retire? All the high earners kids? Sure 😂

Carpedementia · 12/04/2026 14:44

Needspaceforlego · 12/04/2026 09:29

Eh?
Holiday is a luxury, care homes are necessity.

Bit like chemo, the country would be up in arms if it was suggest that someone sell their house to pay their own palliative care or you pay the money back when you die.

Its wrong that you pay you own care if you get one try of terminal illness but not another.

Agreed!! I mean it’s ok paying for their own food, board and hopefully entertainment but why should someone with Alzeihmers have to pay their own care when people with other terminal illnesses dont have to?

Carpedementia · 12/04/2026 14:48

Cheese55 · 12/04/2026 14:03

Dementia can take years to become end of life care. You can live for years in the community with or without home care.

Living with dementia with no care at all? It would surely have to be at a very very early stage? I hate to imagine someone trying to cope with no support.

JHound · 12/04/2026 14:52

I mean it has to be funded somehow? I get it seems “unfair” but some people don’t have assets to sell.

So either we have a situation where everybody pays for themselves and those without end up on the street.

Or nobody pays for themselves and taxes keep on ever increasing to pay for it.

Or we keep the status quo. What is your preference OP?

Snoopy51 · 12/04/2026 14:54

I think there is something to be said for not fighting tooth and nail to save the life of 95 year old advanced dementia patients who don’t have any quality of life as a result of their illness.

Why do we do this? I’d far, far rather be dead than exist like that. Don’t be operating on me to save my life when I’m 95 and away with the bees. Let me slip away quietly and peacefully.

Not that I think for a single second we should be culling people for cost/care reasons. That’s not the same thing. But I do sometimes think we fight too hard. Everyone has to die sometime.

Netcurtainnelly · 12/04/2026 14:55

Carpedementia · 12/04/2026 14:33

It’s not so much the paying for care as the price and quality of that care. Carehomes shouldn’t be privately run for profit. How can it cost 10000 a month to care for an elderly person? A pet hate for me is that the elderly dont even get tax relief on care fees. They get no help and pay full wack for everything.

it's the cost of running the home not just the person as you put it. Imagine the bills alone and staff wages.
Heating bill in Winter must be huge.

1apenny2apenny · 12/04/2026 14:55

Not worked a day but still have assets almost certainly have funded themselves through their life.

Worked but no assets ditto.

Unlike the daily increasing number who do nothing and expect everyone to pay for them cradle to grave.

It’s an easy decision to make to not look after a relative when they can go jnto a care home for free paid for by the tax payer and those funding themselves!

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 14:57

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 14:40

So only kids for high earners? Back to that again?

What do people in NMW jobs do? Never procreate? Who fills those jobs when they retire? All the high earners kids? Sure 😂

Just a bit of personal responsibility to only have the ones that you can afford.
People have just had the two child benefit. Removed. That’s at least an additional £300 for even the lowest claimants per month.
Apparently saving £12.50 a week is no biggie
So shouldn’t be a problem it ?

Allisnotlost1 · 12/04/2026 15:00

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 14:26

But then you have to take some sort of personal responsibility and just have the children that you can afford don’t you?
The stork doesn’t bring them
So if you’re claiming with your mathematics that they wouldn’t even have £50 to spare with one child it’s outright irresponsible to have more than one.
I have lived through the last two decades by the way, and if as you’re claiming it’s not a moral victory to have the money to save.
Then actually, everybody should be able to do it because it’s nothing special is it?

Edited

So your logic is that if you can’t give each of your children 30k when they’re 18, you shouldn’t have them?

I don’t know if you’re trolling or just not following but I’ll simplify it as much as I can. It’s beyond the reality of many to be able to save that much. The fact that you have doesn’t make you special, sorry.

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 15:01

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 14:57

Just a bit of personal responsibility to only have the ones that you can afford.
People have just had the two child benefit. Removed. That’s at least an additional £300 for even the lowest claimants per month.
Apparently saving £12.50 a week is no biggie
So shouldn’t be a problem it ?

Only if they’re in work exceeding a certain income a month or if they are medically unfit for work (or are a carer for someone who is).

Not all low earners receive benefits though do they. A single person with no kids working at NMW isn’t likely to get much of anything.

Are we not talking about care home fees though? Who’s paying those out of a child’s savings account, which will have been long cashed by the time their parent needs a care home.

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 15:02

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

BigAnne · 12/04/2026 15:03

What about the people still in their own home because the family don't want their inheritance spent on care home fees. They're locked in, cooker disconnected. Cameras installed. Home carers get access from a key box. I think that's cruel.

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 15:04

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 15:01

Only if they’re in work exceeding a certain income a month or if they are medically unfit for work (or are a carer for someone who is).

Not all low earners receive benefits though do they. A single person with no kids working at NMW isn’t likely to get much of anything.

Are we not talking about care home fees though? Who’s paying those out of a child’s savings account, which will have been long cashed by the time their parent needs a care home.

Edited

A single person with no children on minimum wage can work 80 hours a week to get where they need to get to which is what we did in the 90s
Oh look, we appeared to have done a full circle

Giving the children the education to acquire assets means that they are then in a position to be able to exercise some choice over their care
It has to start somewhere

PartQualifiedAcca · 12/04/2026 15:05

BigAnne · 12/04/2026 15:03

What about the people still in their own home because the family don't want their inheritance spent on care home fees. They're locked in, cooker disconnected. Cameras installed. Home carers get access from a key box. I think that's cruel.

And I do know of at least one family doing that ….
without even the home carers

MyLuckyHelper · 12/04/2026 15:05

Allisnotlost1 · 12/04/2026 15:00

So your logic is that if you can’t give each of your children 30k when they’re 18, you shouldn’t have them?

I don’t know if you’re trolling or just not following but I’ll simplify it as much as I can. It’s beyond the reality of many to be able to save that much. The fact that you have doesn’t make you special, sorry.

Yes she can give her kids each £30k and then claim that their ability to get on the property ladder was entirely self funded 🫠

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread