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.

Something stupid stated doesn't become less stupid no matter how many times it is said.

Well there arent going to be a 'lot of people' though, because only small numbers of people actually need care and when they do it tends to be for short periods like a few years. There are always outliers before someone feels the need to tell me about their parent in care for 25 years or something.

So its a problem only because of the huge cost per individual and that is due to how successive governments have outsourced this to private companies. Thats the easiest bit to change, but there is no political appetite for it and very very few people even on this thread have supported that, more interested in quibbling about wasters or perceived privilege.

The answer is to radically reduce the IHT thresholds so that everyone with some property - beyond de minimus - pays IHT and then to ringfence IHT to fund social care costs.

At least then, the costs will be borne equally by those with property instead of landing disproportionately on those families already unfortunate enough to have had to cope with hideous long term dementia.

with AI, enforcement should get cheaper and better. This was always the argument against widening IHT.

See, I'm not so sure you can't make a profit from council funded rates. Not millions like now, but enough profit.

Given we are on page 36 though
if you want answers to your question I was pointing out it’s been covered multiple times already

I prefer not to consider anyone’s opinions on here stupid.

In France the government expects the AC to contribute towards the DP care home costs. Each family member’s income and out goings are looked at and charged accordingly. Some children who can prove they were gravely mistreated are exempted. Parents cannot disinherit children

I know of a family where the parents signed over the family home to the son about 20 years ago. The son still lived at home at that point - he was about 40 - but has since met a partner and lives with her. No rent has ever been paid to the son.

The mother has since died and the father has Parkinson’s and is becoming increasingly unwell. He didn’t have Parkinson’s at the time the house was signed over but I am not sure any other explanation can be offered to the council about why the house was signed over other than safeguarding the asset for the son.

There are people who save to pass on to their children and there are people who spend all their money on holidays, cars and the like if their lifetime earnings were the same the first will pay loads for their care whilst the second may have much less saved. That seems so unfair, I'd like if they did it on lifetime earnings, perhaps through NI, but most builders would get it for free then too!

People that are arguing that the bad old council dont pay enough, you're happy for your council tax to go up to pay more then?

Family signed over theirs to dh because they couldn’t afford to maintain it
That was enough for the LA

Got it in one. Care isn't free. The money has to come from somewhere.

The seven year thing is a myth. They can look back as far as they like - of course the further back they go the harder it is to offer it was deliberate deprivation of assets.

We got legal advice on this, we weren't even trying to reduce any assets belonging to my DGM and it would in fact have freed up more cash but were warned it would probably be viewed as an attempt to do so.

I had a mortgage in the nineties. And we needed two wages to pay it. What you’re forgetting is that although house prices were cheaper, pay was much less than it is now and interest rates were higher. Everything is relative.

My DMs friend was in a NH with dementia. Mum visited regularly. Residents were so confused & often talked nonsense. Didn’t recognise spouses or other relatives. I doubt many would have the cognitive skills to sit their smugly showing off about getting a free ride in life.

Perhaps they could use the IHT they receive at the moment for this and the stamp duty for that matter that has been massively increased and the councils got council tax no doubt from the people who pay for their care in the homes

If a person with dementia needs nursing care they should be able to get NHS continuing care, but they make the applicant jump through hoops to get it

We are living longer so in the future more of us are probably going to need care.

Interesting to look at what other countries do
Insurance schemes is a theme I believe to be the best and
Treats everyone equally

• here’s a google

The Netherlands: Often cited as having one of the best systems, with long-term care included in their universal health system since 1968, funded by mandatory insurance, covering nursing homes, and requiring limited out-of-pocket contributions.

• Germany: Operates a mandatory social care insurance scheme (Pflegeversicherung) funded by payroll taxes, which provides a non-means-tested basic level of support, meaning a set amount is covered regardless of income.
• Norway & Sweden (Nordic Model):These countries heavily subsidize care services through high income and local taxes, providing high-quality care that is largely publicly funded.
• Japan: Uses a public long-term care insurance system with nationally set prices for care, where residents generally pay a 10% co-payment, capped to prevent catastrophic costs.
• France: Utilizes a more gradual, means-tested approach compared to the UK, with social housing assistance (ASH) that helps cover the difference between the cost of care and what a resident can afford.

• Singapore: Recently implemented a mandatory national long-term care insurance scheme, CareShield Life, which provides lifetime cash payouts for severe disability, with government subsidies covering up to 75% of nursing home costs for lower-income individuals.
• Age UK +6

Key Characteristics of "Fair" Systems:

• Mandatory Social Insurance:Similar to Germany and the Netherlands, which pool risk.
• Lifetime Caps on Costs: Limiting the maximum an individual must pay in their lifetime, which is a major topic of reform in countries like England.
• High Public Subsidy: The Nordic countries and the Netherlands provide over 90% of expenses publicly.
• Nuffield Trust +3

Conversely, in some countries like the UK and the US, individuals often face higher out-of-pocket costs and must deplete their own financial resources (means-testing) before receiving any support

Yes, it is unfair.
It’s unfair that people have been able to buy homes (and use them to fund their care or whatever they chooses do with them) yet now it’s completely out of reach for the average person to do so.

I don’t begrudge people that have never had the security and luxury of owning their own homes, care in their old age.

Maybe take a moment to realise how lucky you are?

Don’t disagree you may well have needed two wages. This person is suggesting you needed 4. 2 adults both working 2 full time jobs.

also not to get drawn into yet another housing of days gone by debate but we’re not talking about actual costs of housing, it’s the relative costs that matter. In the 90s an average house was around 3/4 times the average wage, today it’s 9/10 times.

Actually, I didn’t. Your reading Comprehension is questionable.
I said that my boyfriend and I had two jobs.
I did not say two full-time jobs

Additionally that you could if necessary as a person who was earning minimum wage and single with no commitments work 80 hours a week as people often did.
Two separate points, made onto two separate posts

Yes I meant to pick up on this earlier, as if Clive and Jean are skipping about in the care home sneering at the self funders. They're busy dribbling and thinking Elvis has just died.

80 hours a week is absolutely two full time jobs. Might help to note down your lies then you’ll know what you’ve said.

If you could just read what’s actually written in front of you it really would help you in life

I do think it's unfair.
My "solution" is to give individuals the choice to allow the local council to rent out the property, as social housing, in exchange for "suitable" accomodation/ care while it is required. After the owner passes away, the property is restored to the family, in good condition.
Advantages to the council/ those needing housing - a ready supply of social housing, not located in "pockets of poverty". Less pressure on the care services as the more people living in close proximity, means less travelling/ more time at appointments for carers.
Advantages to the home owner - housing/ care tailor made to individuals without the need to spend copious amounts of money everytime they need to change anything. Less loneliness. Better facilities and support.
Advantages to family - obviously, they get to inherit the family property.