What's wrong with selling a house you don't live in?

[Kendodd]

On the back of the NI increase.
If an elderly person living alone moves into a care home, well, why wouldn't they sell their house anyway? They're not going to be going back to live there, the house would be sitting empty and we don't have enough houses for people to live in. The elderly person would then also have a huge amount of money to supplement their income in their last few years. As far as I can see the benefits for everyone far outweigh any reasons for keeping the house.

For what it's worth, I don't think there should have been an NI rise or people paying a fortune for their own care. I think inheritance tax should have been increased instead. I don't get the outrage about selling houses nobody lives in though.

I’m happy to sell my house to pay for my care. I won’t need it when I’m gone. I’ve been lucky enough to have a uni education and a job that pays above minimum wage so that I could buy a house.

I think there are many, many people living in council houses who have worked much harder than me throughout their lives who obviously will have to have state-funded care.

That’s fair enough tbh. We’ll both end up with no money and will go out as we came in, equal. I think there’s something cathartic about that.

Those most vocal in the media about not paying for their own care appear to be, unsurprisingly, those who can well afford it alongside leaving their kids a decent inheritance.

Most reasonable people realise the burden on the state is just too much to allow everyone to simply keep hold of their wealth while expecting the taxpayer to fund their care home.

Surely most of the people who are having to sell up for care homes haven’t estate planned very well. If people are sure they are going to pass property on you would put it into trust or gift it long before you needed care. If you do this when you are fit and healthy it isn’t deprivation of assets.

@elbea I haven’t done this because I don’t believe in it. Inheritance tax is a fair tax in an equitable society. If everyone tried to get out of paying it we’d be even more up shit creek than we are .

Does anyone know the percentage of people that require social care? None of my grandparents have. 3 lived to 80's and one to 95.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I did read today that 50% of people who receive social care are of working age, ie not pensioners.

@OldScrappyAndHungry it’s perfectly legal, every single wealthy person in this country has tax planned long in advance of their death.

A perfect example is James Dyson, he is one of the biggest farmers in the UK with Beeswax Farming. He didn’t just fancy being a farmer, he’s bought up huge swathes of the countryside as farmland pays 0% IHT. Why wouldn’t normal people take advantage of legal tax planning when the wealthy do.

I work in this field and just today had a family member quite aggressive saying why should my father have to sell his home, so he shouldn’t have worked all his life then and saved should he, he should’ve been a council tenant and then you’d pay.

My parents make the same argument. They stared with nothing, worked very hard, scrimped, saved & went without to buy their own home, paid off their mortgage and now own it outright. They know plenty of people who lived in council houses but drove better cars & had better holidays than they did. If those people needed care, the state would pay. If my parents needed it, they would have to pay themselves. The profligate & irresponsible who ‘pissed their money up the wall’ would be rewarded. The thrifty & prudent who did the right thing would be punished. How is that fair?

We just bought a house where the previous owner is in a care home, it’s been sitting empty almost three years and has obviously deteriorated etc in that time! I’d imagine they actually lost money on the sale because of it

@Kendodd

I've read the average stay in a care home is two years. So that means the house would be sitting empty for two years, being of no use to anyone.

I disagree. Friend's mum's huge family home in good area rented out + income from her investments/pension almost exactly pays her care bill & accommodation in a home where she has 24h care and life is so much easier for her. Quite sure the people renting it love the location/outlook of the property as much as I did as a child. Hopefully the house will continue to pay out enough for at least the next 7 years as she's determined to get a card from the Queen.

Life’s unfair but the kids know not to bank on inheritance because it’s not a given

Unfortunately not all kids feel the same. I know someone whose parents house has been referred to as "his inheritance" for decades since one of his parents died. He's not joking. He sees it as his right.

On the note of the idea that people scrimped and saved and others who are not so prudent getting there care paid for. I used to think this until my Dad needed care. Frankly the money paid for choices and he was in a lovely care home the one he was put in by a hospital social worker who failed to realised he was already in a home and due to his inability to talk couldn't tell her was the most shocking thing I have seen, men wearing blouses, the floors being "mop clean" even in bed rooms, no feeling of home. I do not object to the fact it was easy to clean. the smell! Omg the smell! The food was just foul, no choices, just easy chew, he had tried to go for a walk and been locked in his room, and I was phoned to tell me about this transgression and that he had become agitated and quote fought us to try and get into (This was how I found out where he was! Having been looking for him for 2 days as the hospital staff couldn't tell me! Another story) I asked when he had been sent to prison, and that I would fright people to get out if they were holding me against my will and there was no reason to hold him hostage!
Truth was they were not used to patients with choices, their patients where normally in a much worse situation with no assets to top up care or to even go out having had their benefits stopped to pay for their care. Staff ratios did not allow for trips out and a resident leaving the home was an issue because they couldn't accompany him or let him in when he returned (he didn't need either at his other home as he had a key and despite his stroke, partial blonde ness and lack of speech Managed to get himself out and about with ease on the buses and to the local pubs.
The same was true for my grandad nice home, trips out, homely feel, but food, care, medications the things they could no longer do were taken care of... my uncle who had no assets had to get to a worse stated of health before he could access "free" care and lives in a horrible horrible place without stimulation. Staff are lovely but I would not like to live there. He became iller waiting and I think it shortened his life, my Dad and granddad both went in the minute it was needed and lived a further 3 years my grandad was 4 purely because they got the care they needed when they needed, no wait lists, no means or care criteria testing.
So remember money gives choices and in my dads case we paid for his care using a mix of his savings and renting his home out, so we still inherited but he was only in his mid 60's when he died had he lived longer it would have gone, unless I had been prepared to step in and do the care, which would mean not working.
Families need to make the choice.

Oh and my dad had a few years mortgage free to enjoy his money and did not lose his pension money as it was his not benefits, so he had money to spend those in council care do not really have any, other than meagre savings if lucky.

I thought that anyone getting an NHS funded place had their assets assessed and had to pay? We're in the middle of this process with my Dad. My Mum is still living in the house, but if it were empty he would have to sell it to pay for care. I know that the process can be slow, but anyone getting NHS funding for residential care will have had to use up their assets first.

I agree with you in principle but currently paying residents are supplementing non fee paying residents which can’t be right. Also not everyone has a house to sell so that system is flawed as well.

@elbea Where did I say it wasn’t legal? I know it’s legal. I just don’t agree with it. It perpetuates the appalling inequalities we have in this country.

And Dyson is an unbearable wanker so no surprise.

@KickAssAngel

I thought that anyone getting an NHS funded place had their assets assessed and had to pay? We're in the middle of this process with my Dad. My Mum is still living in the house, but if it were empty he would have to sell it to pay for care. I know that the process can be slow, but anyone getting NHS funding for residential care will have had to use up their assets first.

Not NHS funded care - that’s different. Some people qualify for care fully funded by the nhs if they are deemed to have a ‘primary health need’ but in reality this is only where needs are very high and complex.

Local authority funded care aka social care aka social services funded - yes there is a financial assessment and property is taken into account as long as no one else is still living in it.

And the NHS funded care is totally free, not means tested.

It's outrageous to expect the government to foot the care bill whilst the person has potentially hundreds of thousands pounds worth of assets sitting there...why should the taxpayer have to pay to protect someone's inheritance?

I so agree with you. Richer kids benefit from a hefty amount of unearned income because their parents were lucky enough to buy in a time of soaring house prices. Meanwhile lower paid people get shafted.

The entitlement is staggering

I’m selling my dads house now for care fees

What else would I do?

@MistySkiesAfterRain

Because they may have wished to pass on some of the value of their house to DC/GC.

I wish to fly to the moon, but it ain’t going to happen! What I don’t want is for my children, or indeed anybody else’s children, to pay towards my care if I have enough money and assets to pay for it myself.

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand I agree that if people have assets they should pay for care. On the other hand if people have worked hard all their lives for those assetts why should they have to pay for care when others do not? Why should everyone who gets inheritance have to pay regardless of whether or not they use it? I think everyone should be forced to have insurance for their own care which they pay starting from the day they turn 18. Out of all the options mentioned on here though I think NI is the fairest

@25yearsnhsworker

Does anyone know the percentage of people that require social care? None of my grandparents have. 3 lived to 80's and one to 95.

My grandmother did - strokes and Alzheimer’s. My parents paid for it.

I don’t know about specialist dementia care, but for other complex needs it can be more complicated but cheaper and obviously far nicer for the person in question to have care at home. It takes a staggering amount of organisational skills but if you’re going to have to flog your house anyway to fund a residential home where the majority of the money goes on private management and profit rather than care, it’s more cost effective. Needs family / friends to do chip in with the organising though.

I work in this field and just today had a family member quite aggressive saying why should my father have to sell his home, so he shouldn’t have worked all his life then and saved should he, he should’ve been a council tenant and then you’d pay.

My parents make the same argument. They stared with nothing, worked very hard, scrimped, saved & went without to buy their own home, paid off their mortgage and now own it outright. They know plenty of people who lived in council houses but drove better cars & had better holidays than they did. If those people needed care, the state would pay. If my parents needed it, they would have to pay themselves. The profligate & irresponsible who ‘pissed their money up the wall’ would be rewarded. The thrifty & prudent who did the right thing would be punished. How is that fair?

I agree with you - that is exactly why it isn't fair. And these aren't really rich people we are talking about. These are people who have made the choice to scrimp and save to get their property. Why should they have to pay and others don't ?

My grandma was in this position. No issue with selling her house to fund her care. However the care home ( which is brilliant and absolutely right for her needs) told us the reason the fees are so high is that people like her who are self funding pay towards the care of those who cannot self fund.
That isn't right.
Ironically when her funds ran out, there was a real risk that she would have had to be moved (aged 101) because there weren't enough self funded residents who could pick up the shortfall between what the council would pay and the actual fees. That's the bit of the system that is broken. No issue with using your own money to fund your own care, but it isn't right to use it to fund others, when some people don't contribute anything to their care costs.

The boomers win again. Not content with buying their properties for absolute pennies and having the best few decades out of this country having absolutely bugger all responsibility to our environment then now get to have their cake and eat it.

It galls me actually. We're farming with so much red tape because my FIL was pissing hot chemicals into watercourses in the 70s with no regard for what he was doing. He managed to put over £200k into a pension pot and now I'm expected to contribute to his care and take out of my own pension and household budget. It stinks.