I don't understand the point in buying a home when all the fees go to care

[whatwhatinthebutt]

I hear 'you need to leave something to your children' but then what if it all goes on care?

You had a home that you had to maintain and repair, but you can't leave it to your children because you have to go into a care home.

It seems wrong or strange, because why are we told to do this if it's so likely it will all go before the children benefit from the hard work of the parent?

Care home fees seem to be something around 2 grand a week, so 10 grand a year. How long to people usually last in care homes? Is it oftentimes they die in there?

And how does it work? Say my dad goes into a home, they force me to sell the house to pay, I get a lump of cash, then just give that to the care home and I get what's left when he dies?

It gives you choices.

Buy your house, pay it off, live decadently and unhealthily and have a fucking fabulous last few years and get something that kills you quick!

it’s Nanny McPhee for me - if I need to go into Care I don’t want to need to and will arrange otherwise.

Both my mother and MIL ended up in a care home. My mother had early stage dementia and my MIL was struggling physically. They were both well looked after and in fact MIL loved it as she was increasingly isolated in her own home and enjoyed the company of others. They were in the same one and both paid £6500 a month, which was funded by their savings, which were rapidly eroding! Neither needed nursing, just a little support with dressing, ensuring they were served good food and being kept safe as both had got to stage where they couldn’t be left alone due to falling and forgetting medication etc.

I was curious if other residents paid the same, which I was told was confidential. An investigative journalist friend of mine did a Freedom of Information request and found out that those with assets subsidised (by nearly 80%!)those funded by the local authority - for exactly the same level of care.

So no, paying more doesn’t necessarily get you a better standard of care than those who get a state funded place.

This - as a basic principle. Obviously over simplified (like your OP), but surely the first is better to aim for than the second.

Plus, I believe only around 10 - 12% ever go into a care home, so most of us won't. Out of those that do, many of the stays are quite short.

Why shouldn't you pay for your own care? I think it's good. You buy yourself a house, live in it as long as you can, then if you can't manage anymore you sell it, move into a care home, and pay the cost of that.

If you can work from home why would you need benefits to care for your dad?

You have to live somewhere.

You can either rent.
Its not so bad if you’re in social housing but private rent is extortionate and benefits will only cover a certain amount.

Or you can buy.
Which is usually cheaper monthly payments, you’re able to move easier, you can pay it off and have a few years of no mortgage which means you can retire earlier and there’s a chance you can pass it on to your loved ones.

Yes you may have to use it for care home fees but you also may not.
The pros of owning your own home, outweigh the cons.

You can put it into your child’s name and you won’t pay carehome fees but it has to be while before they go, else it’s seen as deprivation of assets.

Social housing (ethical housing) is far better.

An alternative, for rich people concerned about their children's futures, is voluntary euthanasia before you reach the point of needing a care home.

Far better just to rent so that your private landlord can enjoy the comfort of a nice private care home paid for with your money. Meanwhile, if you need a care home yourself, I'm sure you'll be more than happy with whatever rundown, underfunded home the council can find a spare bed in.

My understanding is; if you have partner or dependent relative living in your property the house cannot be sold during their lifetime to fund the care home fees. However, the authorities will put a charge on the property so following the death of the remaining person, they can claw back the money to recoup the costs.

Presumably because they can't work if they're looking after their dad 35+ hours a w

I would just raise the point that people saying they'd rather have a private care home over an NHS I'd be very careful they very often have less regulation and have added incentive to be less compliant with inspectors. Best to look at CQC and NMC websites

Also, saying you 'don't understand the point of buying a home if all fees go to care' is ridiculous. The average to go into a care home is 86 while the average age to buy a house is 33 (according to a quick Google). That could be over 50 years of home ownership and not everyone goes into a care home.

If you refuse to buy a house 'because it 'goes to care' you may as well say there is no point in anything with the same argument.

The average cost of a care home place for a self funding person is £1k per week. A chunk of that goes towards funding a council funded person. The care home gets the resident's pension and attendance allowance too. The resident is allowed about £10 a week to buy personal items.
The maximum NHS contribution is about £100 a week and is almost impossible to get. You have to prove that the resident needs nursing care.
My 80 year old neighbour has been in a care home for 2 years. His poor wife is ill herself and absolutely run ragged. She has to accompany him to every single hospital appointment and arrange wheelchair compatible transport. She has to find and pay for physiotherapy and chiropody for him. She goes every day to ensure that he eats and drinks, has his glasses, dentures and hearing aid.
This is a "good home". I worry that she will die first from stress and exhaustion.

Why not? Why do people need benefits to care for their parents? Particularly as OP also intends to work.

OP just refers to ‘helping her dad’ as he gets older. She clearly intends to also work
which is why she referenced working from home flexibly.

carers allowance is there for people who really need it - not as a bonus for doing what most of us do for family on top of working.

I think self funders pay their share and once there is no spouse living in the house it has to be sold. That is the way it works.

Funding own care is reasonable. But it sounds like it’s subsidising others’ care. That’s not reasonable.

Most people don't need to go into care homes at all so making financial decisions to minimise that potential cost is silly.

No one knows when they reach retirement whether they will have 5 healthy years or 45, or whether they will have a nice swift death or a slow lingering one requiing years of care.

It's clear that it gives the best chance of a stable and secure retirement if yoi have paid off your mortgage by then. In the majority of cases you then get to leave your assets to your children.

Obviously those without significant assets get their care paid for by taxpayers but only a minority end up needing so much care that it makes a significant dent in eventual inheritance.

It would be fairer if all homeowners had the choice, at the age of 67, to opt to either take their chances and either keep their estate in full if they need no long term care, but pay for it in full if they need it or opt to pool their resources with other homeowners of the same retirement year, agreeing to corporately pay a share of all the care costs of everyone in that year group so that everyone pays a bit rather than yhe unfortunately long-lived few shouldering their whole burden.

Unfortunately such a scheme wouldn't work as dishonest bastards would find a way to game the system.

That has always been the case.The amount the council pays is less than half the real cost of a place. The rest has to come from somewhere and that is the self funders. Whether it is from their pension, savings or their property. It is all added up.

Neither of my DPs needed care homes and they lived to 86 & 87. DFIL didn't go into a care home and lived to 90. DMIL still lives alone in her own home at 95. I'm guessing they'd all paid off their mortgages in their 50's. So that's a lot of years mortgage/rent free.
Our own house is mortgage free now. Upon 1st death (of me and DH), 50% of the house goes into trust so surviving spouse can live here but the 50% is protected for DS to inherit upon 2nd death so can't be taken into account for care home fees.

I'm more concerned about how the ever increasing number of ageing renters are going to continue to afford to pay rent in retirement and if the Government has made plans for how many people will be relying on the state to cover their rent in retirement.

While that may seem unfair, it's no different than other aspects of the benefit system. If you have something, you pay for it yourself, if you have nothing, the state will step in.

But what is the alternative - leaving dementia sufferers to rot because they have no money and can't afford to pay for care?

Or putting up taxes for everyone so care is totally state funded for everyone? That would be astronomically expensive and with an ageing population, it wouldn't be fair on working people to tax them even more to pay for this. A huge amount is already spent on adult social care from public funds.

Because most people pay their mortgage off many, many years before they’re likely to need care. You then get hopefully many years of being rent/mortgage free so extra money to spend as you like, retire early, or help your kids out. I can’t believe you don’t see that!

For anyone interested, you have to provide 35 hours a week care, the person being cared for needs to be on certain benefits and you cant earn more than £139 a week in other work.

Its a huge £76 a week for 35 hours care.

@magicalkitty taxes should go up to cover people who have no assets to pay for care. People with assets should pay for their own care but their estate should not be subsidising others.

There’s no real incentive to work hard and try to buy property.

That's nonsense as you will have security & likely benefited from rising house prices.