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 if young people can"t afford houses the people in their 70"s are going to have to sell for a lot less than they expected, so not nearly as wealthy as they thought? There are no magic buyers, houses are not savings accounts or stock market investments, they depend om new borrowers for their value.

This is part of the issue with so many houses being in private landlords. They have money and are pushing prices up.
I'm sure that is why the government is trying to squeeze private landlords out the market. Make life difficult for them

That doesn’t account for the higher care home costs

They are exactly the same
Property, money in the bank or the family jewels. They are the same
People generally talk about property only because it’s where most people have their main asset and for some their only asset

i would think the rent from a three bed house would cover the fees in most cases. Rents in London are quite high but affordable if three or four single people are sharing a house.

It was going to be capped under the conservatives. Labour came in and put a stop to it

if they cared about some level of fairness they wouldn’t have done that

The rent from a 3 bed averages at £1350 per month
The care home fees average at £5200 - £5600 per montH

Never had it years ago, why now. Yawn, you're boring.

You’d need to be getting more than £1100 a week after tax in rent to pay for care home fees assuming a person also paid £200 of their state pension in aswell

There aren’t many places like that

In London rents are a lot higher than that, even for a modest place.
Don't forget, the person in the home will also still be getting his or her pension which can contribute to the fees. That could easily be £2,500 a month.

Average care home fees are £1300 a week
That’s £200 from a state pension and £1100 to be found after tax.
Every week
or
£57,200 after tax a year

Plus
Maintenance costs, insurance, gas safety checks etc on the house
Its also wise to only assume ten months rental a the year ( people leave, non payers etc )

Not everyone lives in London you know
and not everyone gets anything like £2500/ month in pension
You are aware I assume that employers didn't have to pay a penny into private pensions till 2018

The current average private pension is £209 / week with many having nothing. Especially those working in the private sector after multiple crashes in the markets in the past and
no employer contributions and
the requirement to move to new pensions when moving jobs. Thus losing the previous ones in management fees

Are you in the UK @Onemoremakesthree

Didn't your dad have the house disregarded by the council as he was a close relative living in the house?

.Key Regional 3-Bed House Rental Trends (Approximate):

• London: Very high, often £2,500–£5,000+ per month, with Prime areas exceeding £3,000.
• South East/Home Counties: Mid-to-high, with 3-bed properties often costing £1,500–£2,000+ per month.
• Midlands & North: Lower, with many 3-bed houses available in the £650–£1,200 range.

None of these would cover care home fees
Even the highest shown for Lindon once you’ve paid the tax man, gas safety, rental hse insurance, maintenance and allowed for average non occupancy periods

No different to any other rented property. Or even a home owner, who could need to sell for a myriad of personal/ financial reasons. And a time frame could easily be legislated for. Such as 6 months, or even a years notice. Giving more security than the majority of the population.

Renting a house out privately, would not generate enough income to cover residential care costs. Renting through the local authority, would be a better “trade off”.

Looking at these figures again to see if it would be cheaper for councils

There are 250,000 council funded elderly in care homes in England
@ an average cost of £949/week or
£749/week after £200 is taken from the state pension

So currently that’s a cost of
250,000 x £749 x 52 weeks
= 9,737,000,000

If councils paid the £7/ week for everyone on UC
there are 8,400,000 people on UC so
8,400,000 x £7 x 52 weeks
= £3,057,600,000

This shows a long term policy of insuring against care home needs for councils would save

£9,727,000,000 - £3,057,600,000

= £6,679,400,000 Saving !

That’s more than two thirds saving for councils
and
allows for the increasing number of people in the future who may not own a home

It’s a win win for everyone

Actually it would be even less for councils as the
£7 is per month not week ( based on updated average costs )
my fault for doing this at this hour

so
8,400,000 x £7 x 12months
= 705,600,000 / year

Therefore the total saving to Councils in England
is
£9,727,000,000 - £705,600,000

= £9,021,400,000 Saving !
Every year

You know that’s so massive I can’t quite believe it myself

I think your figures are skewed. www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/key-facts-figures-adult-social-care

In 2010, it was estimated that 50% of over 65s would spend up to £20,000 on care costs. 1 in 7 (14%) would spend over £100,000.

Even if we ignore inflation, that amounts to around £24000 per person, when averaged across 100 people.

If we take a maximum working life of 16-70, that's 54 years. That would average at £37 per month per person.

However, there's another factor. Only 3% of people use care homes, and 6% of people use professional home care. The rest rely on unpaid family care, or don't need care. If people were expected to pay £37 per month 'insurance' against future care costs, more people will expect formal care in the future, which means that £37 per month won't even scratch the surface of the cost of care.

DD1 (20) receives SS care. At the moment her budget is £23,000 per year for 15 hours of care per week. That could easily rise to £46,000 for 30 hours. She has to contribute just over £4500 per year towards it, which is a charge based on her income. So even at today's money her social care bill could be £3 million. If she needs residential care it will be higher.

That isn’t true. Every party has made promises in opposition and kicked it into the long grass in government. The Tories had 14 years to address it but somehow never managed it. Because it’s impossible.

We apply this to loads of areas - in fact it's the general rule. If you want something you have to pay for it - you don't expect food for free, or holidays, or accommodation, or clothing. The things you've stated are exceptions to that rule, but it doesn't follow that everything, even those in the same category also must be.

If you want a socialist state that provides all services to you for free you wouldn't need to worry about owning a home or choosing your care, but I'm not sure you'd love it very much.

You're not listening. Taxes cover health care, health in this country is free at the point of delivery. It isnt 'free', because we pay for it through taxation, everyone does even if not working due to VAT as well, same goes for police etc although your council tax also includes contributsion made to fire and police.

But social care is not covered by taxes, its not included in that

Of course there are anomalies within that because if your child goes into care because you're not a good parent, the tax payer does pay for their care, that is a social care need but covered by general taxation.

But people dont live on UC forever, very few people are unemployed or underemployed for the whole of their working lives.

You're falling into the trap of believing that anyone without property in old age has somehow spent the preceding 40 years out of work or on benefits.

Your comment is really chilling. I am not judging your personal preference here, but the implication that social care is bound to be so dismal that the 'better' option would be to switch ourselves off before we lose all dignity is too distressing to put into words. It does not have to be that way.

The trouble is with diseases like dementia and Alzheimer’s until they’ve got a cure for those that’s exactly how it has to be.
People should be at home that’s got to be the preference I would imagine for everybody is that they stay with their families and their families look after them
If that’s really really not an option, then taking the red pill is the most logical
You wouldn’t let a dog live in those conditions