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?

I know, that is why I said 'free' not free.

I doubt there is anyone who hasn't paid a penny. Even if you only receive state pension you will be paying over most of that.

Most people I know use"on the whole" to mean "normally with a few exceptions". It does matter, because perceptions that old people voted leave/are wealthy/do not care about younger people become woven into people's consciousness. Stereotyping is always wrong, and fuels racism, misogyny etc. But ageism, against the young as well as the old, is an "ism" that seems to be still socially acceptable.

This. Have you seen the state of some 'free' care homes? Those being funded by the LA are in the same homes as those who are fully self funding.

Most people DON'T end up in care.

Even if they do - I paid my mortgage off last year at the age of 32. So even if I have to go into a home when I'm 80, I'll have had A LOT of rent free years!

Also it's about the security. I can't imagine making a house your home for years, only to get thrown out when the landlord decides it's time.

Sorry, badly worded - those who are funded by LA are in homes where either some or the majority of people are fully self funded. The more expensive homes are less likely to have people who are funded by the LA, but are not necessarily better than less expensive homes.

I can’t tell if you’re only resting your experience to yourself. But how many people pay off a mortgage at 32?

The way I saw it was that everything my parents had earned and saved, including their home, was for their benefit and not mine .

My brother and I had power of attorney and we made sure that my parents savings, and the value of their home when sold as they moved into care was spent on them having the best possible environment and care that they could afford in their final years.

My FIL, OTOH, was a frugal man with considerable savings as he too had saved to be cared for in his old age. When it came down to it, he refused to move or have anyone in his home and my DH had a considerable inheritance when he passed. Even though this was his father's wishes, and it has helped us enormously, we both feel a level of discomfort with this.

I'm sorry to hear that about your dad.

My parents both had dementia - but they were in their 80s. Horrible that this should happen to your dad at an age he should be enjoying retirement for a few years .

A friend of mine’s mother went into a care home. Her care was funded by the local council as she wasn’t a property owner. Other residents paid for their care from their assets. I didn’t think there were council care homes and private care homes.

While that can be true, it's not always the case. My nan was assessed to move from a private care home to an LA-funded one when her money ran out - it was deemed too great a risk to move her, but they can and will.

Language is fluid and open to misunderstandings. Being dyslexic I probably use language differently from most people.

Stereotyping is used by many and not necessarily in a negative way it doesn’t always results in racism and discrimination but I agree it can fuel these things. Stereotyping of Northerns for example as friendly isn’t negative. We do this as it’s cognitively easier. But I agree we need to be careful with our own prejudices and stereotypes so to avoid racism and other forms of unacceptable behaviour.

No, if you read my next post, you can see I corrected that.

there are very few LA funded homes. Most LA funded people are in private homes, whether these are private profit-making or private not-for-profit

You can buy an annuity from the sale of the house. So your care costs are hedged over your remaining life.

@benfoldsfivefan

Utterly ignorant, ill-informed comment. A third of a MILLION pensioners are in private let currently, and it's set to TRIPLE to almost a million by 2040.

The idea that once people hit 65, they are offered a cute little local authority/social housing bungalow with a lifetime tenancy and cheap rent that the benefits office pays for - is farcical! It doesn't happen! The properties are simply not available!

Number of pensioners living in rented homes may treble by 2035 | Housing | The Guardian

@WibblyWobblyTimeyWimeyStuff

You’re posting an article from five years ago, therefore you’ve no credibility and no point reading it, really. And when did I say anything about a “cute little local authority/social housing bungalow”?

Who’s the ignorant one here?

Below is a more recent times article on it ( behind a pay wall but the title gives away the story)

Thereby also a quote from the ifs showing similar.

There are more families in all age brackets in rented acomadation due to housing shortage why do you assume the same doesn't apply to those retired. Yes some will get housing benifit but by no means all

My mum has 2 friends that have been made homeless in the past 2 years. Served notice on apartments and unable to secure other ones. I also know of one of my friends dads who worked untill 75 as he needed to pay rent. Not all of those born in the 50s and 60 are rich by any means

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/pensioners-in-rented-homes-are-to-double-in-ten-years-tnqfc52mf

https://ifs.org.uk/publications/challenges-uk-pension-system-case-pensions-review

Increasing numbers approaching retirement live in more expensive, insecure, private rented accommodation. At age 65, only 3–4% of those born in the 1930s and 1940s lived in private rented housing, compared with 6% for those born in the 1950s and with what looks likely to be 10% for those born in the 1960s. This share could be even higher for younger generations, leading to a combination of a low standard of living in retirement and greater reliance on housing benefit

Non-paywalled link - highly recommend 12ft ladder for getting out from behind the paywall by the way.

My parents are just as you note. Born in the 1950s, yet in rented accommodation that's a private (supposedly charitable) landlord.

So far the landlord has been OK, but there are so many rumours that the properties are going to be knocked down and sold to a developer and then they'll be out and at the mercy of non-charitable private landlords.

They tried to buy a house in the 1980s but got gazumped, which used up all their savings and they had no means to try again.

They're now in their 70's, still paying £800+ a month in rent, when, using an extreme scenario, if they'd bought a forever home when they first got married, they'd have been mortgage free for the last 25 years.

@countrygirl99 , people in care homes who are not self funded, are allowed IIRC about £23 a week for personal expenses like toiletries, hairdressing, clothes and shoes. The rest of their pension goes towards the fees.

When my (self funded) aunt died in her incidentally lovely care home, and I went to collect her things, the staff asked me to leave all her clothes, even some old and faded nighties, because they had residents with no cash beyond the minimum and no relatives to buy them anything they needed. I found that very sad.

@WeWereInParis ,
<How long do people usually last in care homes?>

IIRC the average is about 2-3 but of course some last much longer. My DM lasted for 8, from 89 to 97. She was self funded, so thank goodness DSis, who had P of A, had the foresight to take out an annuity to cover the difference between her income and the fees, until she died.

The annuity provider needed her health history, naturally enough, before they made a calculated ‘bet’ on how long she’d live.

At shortly after the 4 year mark, DSis told me, ‘We’ve won the bet.’
DM’s money - quite a bit of savings plus the sale of her house - would never have lasted otherwise.

@Coffeaddict thank you ... As I was saying, more and more people - 100s of 1000s - over 65 are renting privately, and the councils don't just offer them a nice little bungalow with a forever tenancy and cheap rent, just because they are 'pensioners.'

As I said to a previous poster, it's an ignorant ill informed comment to assume everyone who is a pensioner will never have to worry about their accommodation, and there's some bungalow fairy letting them have their pick of cute social housing bungalows with a neat little garden and driveway, and their lifetime tenancy waiting for them to sign on their 65th birthday!

Very similar situation here. My dad has been in a care home for 11 years now, and we 'won the bet' some time ago. Otherwise he would have run out of cash long since. Obviously, most people 'lose the bet,' though, otherwise the insurance companies would go out of business. For us, it was about setting a limit on the most my dad could spend.

There is a big difference between social housing and private rented accommodation though in that you have more security as a tenant. I have twice had to leave rented properties because the landlord was selling up and that was as a single person. I cannot imagine what it would be like for a family with children in that situation.
You cannot predict what will happen in the future regarding what medical needs you will have. I think that this would be a poor reason not to buy your own property, if you can afford to do so.