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?

This whole issue is caused by government kicking the can of this down the road. Why are care home fees so expensive? The staff are paid a pittance. I can only imagine it it going into care home owners pockets. The government needs to sort something out to make it fairer or at least do that people know what to save for during their lifetimes. I font see why people with their own homes shouldn't have to contribute something to their own care. They are living somewhere, then they are living somewhere else.

Ok, point taken. Why should only those who pay for their own care have to make a massive contribution, amounting to nearly half the cost of their care, to support someone else? Why doesn't all the costs for those without assets come from general taxation, ie spread over everyone, not just the few.

This is a very strange, goady comment.

Surely you know that social housing and council housing is the opposite of subsidised: tenants pay rent, which goes back to maintaining housing and back to the government, so the tenants in effect pay extra taxes? Social housing tenants are 'subsidising' you, if you like thinking in those terms rather than seeing us as a society who do things together.

Stop making up bizarre lies. Weird private property propaganda!

The only reason I’ll have an inheritance is because my parents chose assets over lifestyle
if they’d chosen . Lifestyle burnt through there money the state would fund

I think we’ve give down a rabbit hole about inheritance on this thread

I think the point is why save for something you’ll get free if you don’t bother saving

I don’t think anyone minds paying something for their own care. It’s the amount, which is many times what most people would expect to pay on living costs, and the fact that it’s so much more than the LA pays for people it’s supporting.

Not everyone gets the choice your parents had. Many people have very modest lifestyles and still will never leave an inheritance to their children.

Lots of inheritance is from properties that have been sold - and people are lucky here they haven’t earned that money… house prices are ridiculous in some parts of the country hence big inheritance for some and not others etc.

Why isn’t it treated like education or healthcare? The state provides, free at the point of care, a basic level of care that is advisable to everyone irrespective of income and those that have the means / desire to do so can use their money to buy a higher level of care - like sending kids to private school, or accessing private healthcare while still having the right to use the local state school or hospital.

Ok, point taken. Why should only those who pay for their own care have to make a massive contribution, amounting to nearly half the cost of their care, to support someone else? Why doesn't all the costs for those without assets come from general taxation, ie spread over everyone, not just the few.

You can't divide tax up like that in the real world. It's like childcare, some get it fully subsidised, others pay thousands. And what about people who don't have dc but pay for schools? Or healthy people who never use hospitals but pay for lots of unhealthy people? Or tax going to pay rents or prop up crap wages? You either have a tax safety net or you don't.

You are arguing that it's fairer for all care homes costs to be funded by tax as opposed to individuals. That's not any fairer though, fairer to you but what about others? Also unworkable when we have an ageing population.

No I didnt realise people were subsidising others who were getting free care. Surely that is only if you go into a LA subsidised home though? That is wrong and should be funded through general taxation or some kind of elder care tax. It shouldn't be beyond the wit of a half competent government to dort this out, but the Tories are so scared of their wealthy pensioner base they will never do anything that might slightly mean they have to pay for anything.

There’s no political impetus to change the system, and discussions on this board show why. The argument is “why should the taxpayer fund some else’s inheritance”. There’s no discussion of why 85% of those with assets should be able to leave an inheritance, while 15% chosen at random should not. Maybe inheritance should be taxed at, say 90% - but can you imagine that going through?

Having a carer come to your home is means tested and paid for by the client.
If you have a work related pension you pay tax on that.
Self funders do pay their way, have worked and paid their taxes and they subsidise the people who are being supported by the state.
This is the system we have in this country,
There are very few state run care homes now because there need to be enough self funders to subsidise the residents who are not self funding. The majority of homes are privately owned and provide a fixed number of places for the local authority at a greatly reduced cost.

Imagine what it would be like if youe were in your 80s and your landlord decided to sell up and you had to try and find a place to rent in the current market as well as organising the move,notifying change of address etc. Imagine how you would cope of that happen again a year or two down the line. And the fear it could happen again (highly possible in the current market).
Still think it's not worth owning your own hone?

or some kind of elder care tax

So who pays this? Income taxes are not proportional to other taxes.

It’s if you go into any home which also takes LA funded residents. The majority of LA funded residents are in private homes, there are very few LA subsidised homes.

"Care home fees seem to be something around 2 grand a week, so 10 grand a year."

2k per week is 104k per year.

My dad has been in one for 11 years so far. Self-funded. The costs do add up!

So a couple of ideas. Firstly as a couple leave half the house to the children on first death. This guarantees them some inheritance and cannot be taken into account for care home fees. The will can be structured in such a way that the remaining spouse can still live in the house and can even downsize if required. Secondly it is possible to insure against care costs. It is reasonably expensive, but if you were that worried this is an option.

My friend and her husband are retired teachers. They have a small bungalow. I would hardly class them as wealthy, but they have some savings and their work related pension plus state pension.
The care home gets all of her husbands pensions, his half of their savings and if she dies first the LA will force the sale of their home.
Not all elderly homeowners are greedy wealthy people.

That sounds like nursing home fees. There are 2 categories, care homes and nursing homes which cater for people with a high level of nursing needs. Care homes are cheaper.
The most expensive we looked at a couple of months ago was £1400 but they had a lot of activities, it was bright and cheery, the staff knew the residents and could chat to them about their families/likes etc and were more like a hotel. DB joked he wanted to move in to one himself. The cheapest was £1100 but I wouldn't send mum there, it was dreary, smelled of disinfectant and over-boiled cabbage and half the staff seemed to be new.

• My friend and her husband are retired teachers. They have a small bungalow. I would hardly class them as wealthy, but they have some savings and their work related pension plus state pension. The care home gets all of her husbands pensions, his half of their savings and if she dies first the LA will force the sale of their home. Not all elderly homeowners are greedy wealthy people.

Who has said the above?

I mainly bought so that I could stay in London during my 20s and early 30s securely (fixed my rate for 5 years from 2019 and that gave me time to increase earnings and overpay). We pay £1k per month for a 2 bed flat (service charges less than £150 and residents own the freehold), my neighbour has to move out now as her rent increased from £1400 to £1800 overnight, I have one year more to go on my fixed rate. Not sure how rates would go but it wouldn't be £1800 and i had 5 years of paying the 'low rate' and have also increased my earnings.

DH really wants to rent and I understand that it seems like an attractive option when times are good but at least with mortgage, we can get some certainty so we can ride out the tough times here and long term earnings wise, the security would help us earn more in the long run.

Just look at any thread about elderly people on MN. There have been several in recent weeks. I have seen:
Elderly people all vote tory, all voted Brexit, greedy, selfish, shouldn't be allowed council housing. Really horrible and very upsetting.

I bought a home because the monthly mortgage payment was less than monthly renting. I've not paid off the mortgage so don't have that outgoing at all. I don't have to worry about landlords kicking me out, or living somewhere thats not an acceptable standard etc.

Yeah, one day it might all going on care home fees, but I'll have had maybe 60 years of use out of it by then., And paid significantly less money out than if I was renting.

I bought a home because the monthly mortgage payment was less than monthly renting. I've not paid off the mortgage so don't have that outgoing at all. I don't have to worry about landlords kicking me out, or living somewhere thats not an acceptable standard etc.

Yeah, one day it might all going on care home fees, but I'll have had maybe 60 years of use out of it by then., And paid significantly less money out than if I was renting.

OP you're in social housing. That is completely different from renting in the private sector and is very difficult/impossible for most people to obtain. In the private sector you are often paying over the odds, you have zero security, the rent can be increased at any time, you can be evicted, the landlord will often be mainly motivated by money/cost cutting when it comes to repairs meaning that the bare minimum is done.

We're in social housing and have decided not to buy, although technically we could. We have repairs done promptly, have a low rent and have no responsibility for major unexpected costs like replacing the roof/windows etc or dealing with a boiler breakdown. Above all we have security of tenure and cannot be evicted unless we consistently fail to pay the rent or engage in illegal/antisocial behaviour. In our case we also have no kids so inheritance isn't much of a concern.

You need to realise that you (and we) are in a very privileged position compared to most so your arguments just don't apply.